Eamonn Holmes loses IR35 appeal

The TV presenter, 63, was hit with a tax bill in 2020 after losing a case against the tax authority over how he was paid.

Holmes claimed he was a freelancer, and received payments via his company Red, White and Green Limited.

HMRC argued that Holmes needed to pay tax for under IR35 rules after it argued that he was effectively an ITV employee, and not self-employed.

Following his appeal against the action, Upper Tribunal judges have upheld the decision of the First Tier Tribunal, in 2018.

Read more: 82% of workers suffer from physical pain due to stress at work

Mr Justice Mellor and Judge Jonathan Canna said they were not convinced by Mr Holmes’ lawyers assertion that the tribunal overlooked “characteristics which might have indicated that the ITV contracts were part of Mr Holmes’ self-employed business activities”.

The judgment added that Mr Holmes declared “profits from self-employment included on his tax returns” from 2011 to 2015 of “between £169,371 and £348,286”.

Lawyers representing Mr Holmes argued that he was working as freelancer and his income was accounted for as being from self-employment.
 
The total amount of tax owed was not in the judgement.

Read more: Cath Kidston: Jobs at risk as Next buys brand

The outcome stands in contrast to other presenters who have fought similar cases and won their appeals.

It comes days after Gary Lineker won his £4.9m appeal against HMRC.

The sports presenter was pursued by HMRC over taxes on his income from the BBC and BT Sport. However, a judge ruled that he was a freelancer and had contracts at both broadcasters.

After reading the decision on Holmes, Dave Chaplin, CEO of tax compliance firm IR35 Shield, said: “In light of HMRC saying they disagreed with the Gary Lineker decision, it will be interesting to see if HMRC agree with this one.
 
“I personally think the overall result for Holmes is wrong, but the difficulty is that the Upper-tier is not a full rematch, and more evidence cannot be put on the table. The UT referred to the evidence (and insufficiency of) a few times, and it is notable that Holmes’ barrister wanted more evidence to be adduced. 

"The challenge for Holmes is that he would have needed a time machine to know what the Court of Appeal was going to say many years later in relation to being in business on his own account, which was released on 26th April 2022 in the Atholl House case. 

"Had he and his advisor known, then perhaps more evidence would have been put before the tribunal, and the outcome would have been different.”