Significance of issue
Significance of issue
As we have described, before the FTT the parties agreed that the control requirement was satisfied, and the FTT agreed. Therefore, Ground 1 is relevant in this appeal only insofar as the FTT’s finding at FTT[111(6)] influenced its decision regarding the Third RMC Stage and/or its overall decision that IR35 did not apply.
We are satisfied that the finding at FTT[111(6)] was taken into account by the FTT in its decision regarding the Third RMC Stage, since it was specifically identified as a relevant factor at the Third RMC Stage by the FTT at FTT[134(6)]. As we will discuss below in relation to Ground 2, the extent of control in the hypothetical contract is itself a relevant factor, in any event, at the Third RMC Stage.
- Heading
- Introduction
- THE LEGISLATION AND THE ISSUE BEFORE THE FTT
- THE APPROACH TO DETERMINING WHETHER THE INTERMEDIARIES LEGISLATION APPLIES
- background facts
- the ftt’s decision
- grounds of appeal
- ground 1: right of first call
- Basis of appeal
- Significance of issue
- Arguments of the parties
- Discussion
- ground 2: the third rmc stage
- HMRC’s appeal
- Arguments of the parties
- Nature of HMRC’s challenge
- FTT’s self-direction
- Discussion: the factors identified as relevant by the FTT
- Factors (1) and (2)
- Factor (3)
- Factors (4), (5) and (9)
- Factor (6)
- Factor (7)
- Factor (8)
- Factor (10)
- Factor (11)
- Factor (12)
- Conclusions
![UT/2023/000068 - [2024] UKUT 00262 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)