Older IR35 Cases
Synaptek v Young (2003)
LIME IT v Justin (2002)
FS Consulting v McCaul (2001)
Battersby v Campbell (2001)
Providers > Services for Serious Contractors > IR35 > Older IR35 Cases

FS Consulting v McCaul (2001)

Printer friendly version

Article - Inland Revenue win second case at the Special Commissioners (FS Consulting v McCaul).

The second IR35 case has been heard before the Special Commissioners and the Inland Revenue has again been successful in establishing that IR35 applied to the contractor. The case of FS Consulting Limited v McCaul (HM Inspector of Taxes) was heard in December and the detailed judgment was released recently.

The arguments put forward by the contractor’s counsel focussed on interpretation of the Social Security Regulations and the issue of mutuality of obligation while the Revenue concentrated on the usual issues of working solely for one client, on the client’s site, for a set number of hours using the client’s equipment. The Commissioner found that the contractor was not controlled by the client but was integrated to a degree into the workforce.

The Special Commissioner considered first the factors found which pointed to the conclusion that there was a contract of service.

Those factors were:

  • Obligation
  • Control of a Skilled Man
  • Control through Termination of Contract
  • Lack of Hiring Employees
  • Lack of Equipment
  • Hourly Wage
  • Lack of Risk and Profit
  • Mutuality of Obligation
  • Exclusivity
  • Part & Parcel
  • The Special Commissioner then considered the factors that pointed to the conclusion that Mr Simpson was working under a contract for services.

    Those factors were:

  • Lack of Holiday/Sick Pay
  • Lack of Permanence
  • Limited Integration
  • Substitution
  • Control of a Skilled Man
  • The Special Commissioner concluded that on balance the factors weighing against there being a contract for services was outweighed by the factors for there being a contract of service. The Commissioner made particular reference to the fact that because the contracts were not professionally drafted it was necessary to look at the substance of the relationship rather than the wording of the contract. The message is clear that for a contractor to legitimately operate outside IR35 there must be a comprehensive commercial contract.

    Back to the top
    Printer friendly version