IR35 experts have been in disagreement over the verdict that was recently released for the PGMOL rehearing. The court of appeal moved the case back to the FTT because the determination of their status was a win for HMRC. There is fear that the appeal judges have agreed with HMRC’s argument about MOO surrounding the case.
The expert law firms that have been involved in the case from the beginning have stated that they are disappointed that HMRC has been so staunch in their stance about the MOO for this case. The court appeal and the remittance to FTT should help determine if there is MOO in the contracts, but HMRC continues to be stubborn about wanting to pursue high profile contracts.
Contractors who are worried that this case will set a precedent that will impact them should know that the contract situation for the PGMOL case is highly unusual and has been fraught with errors and other contradictions from the beginning. This will not be a precedent case so much as yet another indication of why the MOO portion of HMRC’s wrangling over contractor status is so flawed.
Experts are pointing out that the issue that this case clearly shows is that the CEST tool is not reliable at all. This has continued to be a problem related to the HMRC’s stated intentions about the IR35 rules, and they have yet to address the many issues with the tool and its function. Everyone agrees that it is not helpful and is often wrong, and yet nothing is done to replace it with a better tool.
Experts are calling for the courts to force the issue of the definition of MOO so that there can be some standard by which contracts can be accurately judged. This incessant limbo where contractors are never sure of their status is unfair to everyone involved, and HMRC seems blissfully unwilling to address the issue, even at this late date.
