UT/2023/000068 - [2024] UKUT 00262 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT/2023/000068 - [2024] UKUT 00262 (TCC)

Fecha: 25-Abr-2024

Factor (11)

Factor (11)

92.

At FTT[134(11)], the FTT said this:

(11)

In Basic Broadcasting Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 00048 (TC) (‘BBL’) in relation to the services provided by Adrian Chiles to ITV and the BBC, it is found that ‘[e]very time [Mr Chiles] presented a programme his reputation was at risk’. In common with this finding in BBL, there was a reputational risk for Mr Barnes every time he appeared on air for Sky, whether it was for a live commentary or for an interview by Sky Sports News. As stated in the questionnaire response, which I accept, ‘any editorial issues that emanate from [Mr Barnes’] mouth are his own responsibility’ (§47 (6)). The reputational risk is real, and requires vigilance to mitigate, and is part and parcel for being in business on his own account which is staked largely on Mr Barnes’ profile as a world expert on rugby.

93.

The decision in BBL has now been remitted to the FTT following an appeal to the Upper Tribunal (HMRC v Basic Broadcasting Limited [2024] UKUT 00165 (TCC)), but, in any event, the FTT in BBL went on to say, in the passage referred to at Factor (11), that “[H]owever, this is the sort of risk that applies to every presenter, whether they are employed on a fixed-term contract or as a self-employed contractor”: [350].

94.

In agreement with the FTT in BBL, we do not consider that the reputational risk faced by Mr Barnes which the FTT found to exist was an indicator, as a matter of principle, that he would not have been employed under the hypothetical contract.