Another defeat for HMRC in TV presenter IR35 row
Several high profile TV presenters have been under the spotlight in respect of whether IR35 applies to their working arrangements. The latest of these resulted in a loss for HMRC. What’s the full story?

Challenging HMRC’s assertions that IR35 applies to working arrangements has been something of a mixed bag for TV presenters. Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams both won their cases; but others, including Eamonn Holmes, have lost theirs. The latest case to be heard was that of Adrian Chiles (C), most recognisable as a sports presenter.
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) disagreed with HMRC’s assertions that C was an employee (in all but name) of both the BBC and ITV. The Tribunal held that C was in business on his own account via his limited company, based on the number of clients he worked for. He had also embarked on a number of unsuccessful commercial ventures, indicating that he bore considerable financial risk. The FTT also downplayed the importance of a lack of substitution clause, i.e. that C did not have the right to provide a substitute if he were unable to undertake his duties.
The FTT took a “big picture” approach and decided that on the face of things the arrangements with both the BBC and ITV were part of C's business, and not part of an arrangement to which IR35 would apply. Of course, FTT decisions are not binding, and it is likely that HMRC will appeal. However, it does show that negative media coverage of these high-profile cases should not be taken at face value.
Related Topics
-
Delay salary to save tax
As a company owner manager, you decide when to take income from your business. If that’s your only source of income, tax planning is relatively simple but it’s trickier if you have other sources. What’s the best strategy to improve tax efficiency?
-
Loan written off: are you in HMRC’s crosshairs?
HMRC is writing to directors that took a loan from their company that was later written off or released. What should you do if you receive a letter?
-
Cutting the cost of a company car
You want to help your young son replace the ancient car he currently drives. The plan is for your company to buy it but for the running costs to be met by your son. That’s fine with him but is there a more tax and cost-effective alternative?