![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000044 - [2025] UKUT 00094 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000044 - [2025] UKUT 00094 (TCC)
Fecha: 23-Ene-2025
68(8) “It is right that Mr Thompson’s work for Sky took up a relatively small amount of his time and that this was one method of capitalising on Mr Thompson’s own status and character. However, this m
68(8) “It is right that Mr Thompson’s work for Sky took up a relatively small amount of his time and that this was one method of capitalising on Mr Thompson’s own status and character. However, this must be balanced against the fact that his work was the substantial majority (an average of 80% during the relevant periods) of the Company’s earnings. This was the main element of Mr Thompson’s professional income. As such, his services for Sky did not take place against a background of the majority of Mr Thompson’s professional income coming from a range of self-employed engagements.”
The Appellant’s submissions
Mr Firth submitted that the fact that the Sky contract would take up a relatively small amount of Mr Thompson’s time was an important factor because it meant that he had plenty of time to take up other engagements to exploit his image as an entertaining and knowledgeable former footballer (see Atholl House Productions Ltd v. HMRC [2024] UKFTT 37 (TC), [135(4)(c)] referred to as a helpful summary in Barnes UT, [108(6)]). To what extent he did so was a matter for him. This presented a contrast to other situations where the worker provides services every working day and would have limited ability to take on other engagements.
Conversely, the extent of Mr Thompson’s earnings from other engagements was not relevant and should not have been taken into account because it would not be known to Sky (Atholl House CoA, [123]). The FTT did not identify any evidential basis for finding that Sky would have known what proportion of Mr Thompson’s income its contract constituted and there was none. That constituted an error of law by the FTT.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE LAW
- THE FTT DECISION AND THE EVIDENCE
- The background leading up to Mr Thompson’s work for Sky before 2013
- The contracts with the Appellant company and their operation from 2013
- THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
- A(1) Erroneous approach to and interpretation of “on an ad hoc as and when required basis”
- The FTT Decision
- The Appellant’s submissions
- Discussion and Analysis
- A(2) Erroneous approach to interpreting “all directions and requests…will be complied with”
- The FTT Decision
- The Appellant’s submissions
- Discussion and Analysis
- A(3) Erroneous construction of the provision relating to travel and destination
- The FTT’s Decision
- The Appellant’s submissions
- Discussion and Analysis
- B(1) Wrong approach to establishing hypothetical contract
- The FTT’s Decision
- The Appellant’s submissions
- Discussion and analysis
- (B2) Failure to take into account relevant evidence
- Discussion and Analysis
- (B3) Approach to the “informal arrangements” evidence
- Discussion and analysis
- (B4) Reasonableness not a permissible shortcut
- Discussion and analysis
- The FTT’s decision as to whether the necessary framework of control existed was wrong in law The FTT Decision
- The Appellant’s submissions
- Discussion and analysis
- The FTT’s application of the third stage of the employment test was wrong in law
- 68(1) “The control set out above was considerable. In particular Sky’s…right to require Mr Thompson’s performance of the services at location of their choosing is consistent with an employment relatio
- Discussion and analysis
- 68(2) “Mr Thompson’s role as a pundit and a guest giving his own opinion does not tend against the hypothetical contract being an employment contract.”
- Discussion and Analysis
- 68(3) “The manner in which Mr Thompson prepared for and provided these services is not inconsistent with an employment relationship. The same is true of the fact that Mr Thompson would leave as soon a
- Discussion and Analysis
- 68(4) “The fact that Mr Thompson’s opinions and analysis remained his does not affect the employment relationship. Crucially, the hypothetical contract restricted Mr Thompson’s ability to exploit thos
- Discussion and Analysis
- 68(5) “The hypothetical contract provided for termination by Sky but not by Mr Thompson.”
- Discussion and analysis
- 68(6) “Whilst Mr Thompson had his own status and character as a result of his expertise and professional background, he had become associated with Soccer Saturday. This was recognised in the wording o
- Discussion and Analysis
- 68(7) “The fact that the payment was paid as a block fee regardless of air time is neutral. Whether this is a salary or a fee depends upon whether the arrangement was an employment contract or not rat
- Discussion and Analysis
- 68(8) “It is right that Mr Thompson’s work for Sky took up a relatively small amount of his time and that this was one method of capitalising on Mr Thompson’s own status and character. However, this m
- Discussion and Analysis
- 68(9) “The fact that Mr Thompson had the potential to increase his income through the efficient use of his time is neutral. This is saying no more than the fact that Mr Thompson could earn money from
- Discussion and Analysis
- Overall assessment lacking in logic and outside the reasonable range
- Discussion and analysis
- Conclusions