Ex-Liverpool star loses IR35 case
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has found in favour of HMRC regarding the application of IR35 rules to former Liverpool and England footballer Phil Thompson’s work for Sky. What’s the full story?

HMRC asserted that additional tax of almost £300,000 was payable because Phil Thompson’s (T’s) work for Sky, via his personal service company, was inside the IR35 rules. The rules essentially ensure that PAYE income tax and Class 1 NIC are due if a contractor would be an employee but for the insertion of an intermediary, e.g. a personal service company. Many TV personalities, radio presenters and sports commentators have found their careers being scrutinised at the tax tribunals and higher courts over the same issue in recent years, with very mixed results.
This time, HMRC was victorious, and the FTT agreed that the anti-avoidance legislation did apply. This is because the relationship between T and Sky was consistent with that of employment, due to the lack of income from other projects and the level of control Sky had over T’s other work. Each of these cases is highly dependent on the specific facts but, in similar cases won by the taxpayer, the individual is usually very well established and involved in many different projects because of that. In contrast, T is only closely associated with the TV programme he works on at Sky TV.
Related Topics
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?