In PA Bell v HMRC (TC01234 – 13 July), a bricklayer (B) had submitted tax returns stating that he was self-employed. However, following an accident at work, he claimed that he should have been treated as an employee of the contractor for whom he was working.
HMRC issued a ruling under SSCTFA 1999 s 8 that B was not an employee. B appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, which reviewed the evidence and dismissed his appeal, finding that B was working under a contract for services which ‘was similar to many in the construction industry where workers move from employer to employer on short term contracts, and where the worker considers himself to be self-employed’.
Why it matters: In most cases where the boundary between employment and self-employment is in dispute, HMRC are contending that the appellant is an employee.
This was one of the minority of cases where the appellant was claiming to be an employee (although he had previously submitted returns on the basis that he was self-employed).
The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that the appellant was self-employed.
In PA Bell v HMRC (TC01234 – 13 July), a bricklayer (B) had submitted tax returns stating that he was self-employed. However, following an accident at work, he claimed that he should have been treated as an employee of the contractor for whom he was working.
HMRC issued a ruling under SSCTFA 1999 s 8 that B was not an employee. B appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, which reviewed the evidence and dismissed his appeal, finding that B was working under a contract for services which ‘was similar to many in the construction industry where workers move from employer to employer on short term contracts, and where the worker considers himself to be self-employed’.
Why it matters: In most cases where the boundary between employment and self-employment is in dispute, HMRC are contending that the appellant is an employee.
This was one of the minority of cases where the appellant was claiming to be an employee (although he had previously submitted returns on the basis that he was self-employed).
The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that the appellant was self-employed.
