UKFTT 148 (2010) Talentcore Ltd (t/a Team Spirits) v Revenue & Customs

Employment status - Taxpayer won

Case Summary:

This case involved 7 years of assessments and a liability of £3.6m. The issue was whether the legislation dealing with agency workers (S. 44 & 47 ITEPA 2003), which has the effect of deeming them to be employed by the agency for income tax and NICs, was applicable to Talentcore Ltd. The Company supplied individuals for counter and promotional work to major cosmetic companies at duty free shops at airports.  It has a database of about 100 individuals referred to as consultants.  The Appellant supplied the consultants to the cosmetics companies by allocating work to them. 

The First Tier Tribunal found that the consultants had an unfettered right to provide a substitute. It was held “In my view given the temporary and ad hoc nature of the Appellant’s bookings the right of substitution that I have found to exist would prevent there being a contract of service if that were in issue.  Similarly it prevents there being an obligation to render (or provide), personal services within the legislation applicable here.”

And so the appeal succeeded.

This case involved 7 years of assessments and a liability of £3.6m. The issue was whether the legislation dealing with agency workers (S. 44 & 47 ITEPA 2003), which has the effect of deeming them to be employed by the agency for income tax and NICs, was applicable to Talentcore Ltd. The Company supplied individuals for counter and promotional work to major cosmetic companies at duty free shops at airports.  It has a database of about 100 individuals referred to as consultants.  The Appellant supplied the consultants to the cosmetics companies by allocating work to them. 

The FTT found that the consultants had an unfettered right to provide a substitute. “In my view given the temporary and ad hoc nature of the Appellant’s bookings the right of substitution that I have found to exist would prevent there being a contract of service if that were in issue.  Similarly it prevents there being an obligation to render (or provide), personal services within the legislation applicable here.”

And so the appeal succeeded.