Lineker follow-up

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

Just for those who decided to spout rubbish based on no knowledge - Lineker won his case against HMRC so he is not a tax evader. 

The separate issue on rights and wrongs of loopholes and tax law that could easily be tightened are for the govt -who could easily do more but simply don’t want to, largely as they/their mates are using them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65103265

[dylanisabaddog 4,903]

Thanks for posting this, you beat me to it. HMRC should hang its head in shame after having lost 2 previous similar cases. I'm shocked they took this case as far as they did. I wonder why that was. 

Apologies awaited from @TeemuVanBastenand others

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

Just now, dylanisabaddog said:

Thanks for posting this, you beat me to it. HMRC should hang its head in shame after having lost 2 previous similar cases. I'm shocked they took this case as far as they did. I wonder why that was. 

Apologies awaited from @TeemuVanBastenand others

@JuanVelasco

[Greavsy 2,412]

This is always a tricky one, and I'm sure those of use who could, legally, pay less tax, would jump at the chance to do so.

Hard to have a view without appearing somewhat envious,  thsts hes "got away with it" but the court has said he's legal and above board.  Immoral? Maybe,  but not illegal.

And who here has paid cash in hand for a handy/workman at their house? That's more illegal than Mr Lineker's actions here.

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,903]

Just now, Greavsy said:

This is always a tricky one, and I'm sure those of use who could, legally, pay less tax, would jump at the chance to do so.

Hard to have a view without appearing somewhat envious,  thsts hes "got away with it" but the court has said he's legal and above board.  Immoral? Maybe,  but not illegal.

And who here has paid cash in hand for a handy/workman at their house? That's more illegal than Mr Lineker's actions here.

 

No Greavsy. His highly paid tax agent thought he was freelance. The BBC and their highly paid advisers thought he was freelance. A court of tax specialist judges thought he was freelance. Anyone who knows anything about tax was baffled that this case went to court. Quite simply, he was right and HMRC were wrong. 

The only question here is why this case went to court. Could it be that HMRC did what they were told to do by their masters? An absolutely disgraceful waste of taxpayers money. Lineker hasn't got away with anything. He was right. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,429]

9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Thanks for posting this, you beat me to it. HMRC should hang its head in shame after having lost 2 previous similar cases. I'm shocked they took this case as far as they did. I wonder why that was. 

Apologies awaited from @TeemuVanBastenand others

Agree. IR35 is designed for people becoming  “self employed” limited companies and only working for one principal. It is/was rife in the construction industry. 
 

Lineker obviously works for more than one (or two) principals. Even HMRC admitted he worked for both BBC and BT , in itself a fairly obvious measure. Add in his other presenting work (he turns up on non UK sports channels regularly) as well as having other income streams . I can’t see how it was ever going to be successful. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,903]

21 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Agree. IR35 is designed for people becoming  “self employed” limited companies and only working for one principal. It is/was rife in the construction industry. 
 

Lineker obviously works for more than one (or two) principals. Even HMRC admitted he worked for both BBC and BT , in itself a fairly obvious measure. Add in his other presenting work (he turns up on non UK sports channels regularly) as well as having other income streams . I can’t see how it was ever going to be successful. 

It wasn't an IR35 issue. If it was HMRC would have challenged the BBC. 

Lineker, as I understand it, was in an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) with his wife who was involved in their business. HMRC saw this as tax avoidance but it is far more likely to have been set up for reasons other than tax. No one in their right mind would have challenged him under IR35. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It wasn't an IR35 issue. If it was HMRC would have challenged the BBC. 

Lineker, as I understand it, was in an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) with his wife who was involved in their business. HMRC saw this as tax avoidance but it is far more likely to have been set up for reasons other than tax. No one in their right mind would have challenged him under IR35. 

The fact she was paid £30k suggests it wasn't completely to avoid tax, otherwise he'd have maximised her basic rate limit.

Some people look a little bit silly right now.

EDIT: Sillier than usual

Edited March 28, 2023 by canarydan23

[Greavsy 2,412]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

No Greavsy. His highly paid tax agent thought he was freelance. The BBC and their highly paid advisers thought he was freelance. A court of tax specialist judges thought he was freelance. Anyone who knows anything about tax was baffled that this case went to court. Quite simply, he was right and HMRC were wrong. 

The only question here is why this case went to court. Could it be that HMRC did what they were told to do by their masters? An absolutely disgraceful waste of taxpayers money. Lineker hasn't got away with anything. He was right. 

Apologies Dylan,  my reply was meant to be more general and not GL specific,  although did mention him by name. I should have been clearer. I agree with you re GL case.

[Leedscanary 337]

1 hour ago, Greavsy said:

This is always a tricky one, and I'm sure those of use who could, legally, pay less tax, would jump at the chance to do so.

Hard to have a view without appearing somewhat envious,  thsts hes "got away with it" but the court has said he's legal and above board.  Immoral? Maybe,  but not illegal.

And who here has paid cash in hand for a handy/workman at their house? That's more illegal than Mr Lineker's actions here.

 

I’d say the person receiving the cash in hand and not declaring earnings would be technically more at fault than the payee?

[Greavsy 2,412]

9 minutes ago, Leedscanary said:

I’d say the person receiving the cash in hand and not declaring earnings would be technically more at fault than the payee?

Correct,  as they are the ones denying hmrc the tax, maybe I should have said people benefitting from cash in hand deal.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,429]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It wasn't an IR35 issue. If it was HMRC would have challenged the BBC. 

Lineker, as I understand it, was in an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) with his wife who was involved in their business. HMRC saw this as tax avoidance but it is far more likely to have been set up for reasons other than tax. No one in their right mind would have challenged him under IR35. 

Yes it was . which makes it even more nuts. 
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/28/gary-lineker-wins-battle-with-hmrc-over-49m-tax-bill

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,429]

https://news.sky.com/story/gary-lineker-wins-4-9m-tax-appeal-against-hmrc-12844266
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gary-lineker-tax-hmrc-win-b2309500.html

[dylanisabaddog 4,903]

11 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Yes it was . which makes it even more nuts. 
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/28/gary-lineker-wins-battle-with-hmrc-over-49m-tax-bill

Good grief! My apologies. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I'm struggling here. Why on earth would they challenge Lineker on that basis having been told they were wrong in other cases?

My post was based on a belief that they couldn't possibly be that stupid. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[dylanisabaddog 4,903]

9 hours ago, Leedscanary said:

I’d say the person receiving the cash in hand and not declaring earnings would be technically more at fault than the payee?

He didn't receive cash in hand and he didn't fail to declare the earnings. This was a technical argument about how the income should be taxed. 

[cornish sam 951]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Good grief! My apologies. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I'm struggling here. Why on earth would they challenge Lineker on that basis having been told they were wrong in other cases?

My post was based on a belief that they couldn't possibly be that stupid. 

I am not experienced in such things so this is a genuine question, but, I thought the intent of IR35 was to stop people paying corporation tax instead of income tax on what is quite blatantly personal income? Which from the outside this looks to be a cut and dried case of and the payment to his wife as an employee is a classic "look this is a real company" move...

[dylanisabaddog 4,903]

1 hour ago, cornish sam said:

I am not experienced in such things so this is a genuine question, but, I thought the intent of IR35 was to stop people paying corporation tax instead of income tax on what is quite blatantly personal income? Which from the outside this looks to be a cut and dried case of and the payment to his wife as an employee is a classic "look this is a real company" move...

You may think that it's quite blatant but the tax advisers at the BBC and those representing Lineker thought not and most importantly so did the court. 

Incidentally Lineker didn't use a company, he and his wife were members of a Limited Liability Partnership. 

You should bear in mind that Lineker and wife's partnership wasn't just about the BBC. There was also income from BT and ITV and they run a very successful media production company. 

The big question is why HMRC challenged him. They recently lost 2 similar cases in the courts and really should have pulled back from this one. A total waste of our money and court time. The ruling came very quickly and is somewhat dismissive of HMRC's argument. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,429]

1 hour ago, cornish sam said:

I am not experienced in such things so this is a genuine question, but, I thought the intent of IR35 was to stop people paying corporation tax instead of income tax on what is quite blatantly personal income? Which from the outside this looks to be a cut and dried case of and the payment to his wife as an employee is a classic "look this is a real company" move...

It became prevalent in some industries that companies employing large numbers employees encouraged those employees to become sub contractors. The SC would set up a limited company (or an LLP) and what used to be their wages would be paid to their company.
This benefited both parties. the “employer” avoided costs of employment such as NI, holiday and sick pay . The employee suddenly had a vehicle to put lots of expenses through including their own wages or drawings . These would be lower than their original wages . If they were very clever they could make a loss. 
Of course the loser here is HMRC. No NI, no Income tax .  So IR35 came in , to establish whether someone genuinely is a “freelance” or sub contractor (usually the test is working for others ) or just a person working for the same “employer” . If it is held that the person is an employee then income tax rates apply. 

HMRC were always going to struggle here. Lineker is clearly freelance in many aspects working for various outlets (BBC, BT, Amazon) as well as other income streams from overseas sports production and media outlets. Lineker isn’t going to be able to do it all himself so employing his wife or making her a partner is not unusual. 
 

Most BBC people refer to themselves as “Freelance” and will have fixed term renewable contracts rather than contracts of employment . 
 

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,429]

https://www.qdoscontractor.com/news/2022/04/27/hawksbee-loses-ir35-case
 

Interesting comparison. I guess it does give some grounds in precedent for HMRC to pursue Lineker .

[KiwiScot 1,443]

Still got that banned episode of Attenborough to come up. Hopefully it gets shown

[Foxy2600 300]

Non-Football

[essex canary 495]

17 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

The fact she was paid £30k suggests it wasn't completely to avoid tax, otherwise he'd have maximised her basic rate limit.

Some people look a little bit silly right now.

EDIT: Sillier than usual

If he wanted to maximise his wife's earnings perhaps better to seek a position as Sporting Director of a medium ranking Football Club.

[canarydan23 4,060]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If he wanted to maximise his wife's earnings perhaps better to seek a position as Sporting Director of a medium ranking Football Club.

Oof.

[A Load of Squit 5,156]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If he wanted to maximise his wife's earnings perhaps better to seek a position as Sporting Director of a medium ranking Football Club.

Zoe was at the club before Stuart.

[essex canary 495]

1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

Zoe was at the club before Stuart.

Other way round then maybe?  I dont think we were clear that she was Stu's boss until further down the line?

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

18 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

No Greavsy. His highly paid tax agent thought he was freelance. The BBC and their highly paid advisers thought he was freelance. A court of tax specialist judges thought he was freelance. Anyone who knows anything about tax was baffled that this case went to court. Quite simply, he was right and HMRC were wrong. 

The only question here is why this case went to court. Could it be that HMRC did what they were told to do by their masters? An absolutely disgraceful waste of taxpayers money. Lineker hasn't got away with anything. He was right. 

Definitely suspect the government could have had a hand in this, especially as Braverman was shown to be a bumbling, ineffective idiot who should have been out on her ear again. What better way to silence Lineker than have him lose a court case?

[A Load of Squit 5,156]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Other way round then maybe?  I dont think we were clear that she was Stu's boss until further down the line?

You're an idiot.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Doofus!

Sorted!!

[essex canary 495]

3 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

It became prevalent in some industries that companies employing large numbers employees encouraged those employees to become sub contractors. The SC would set up a limited company (or an LLP) and what used to be their wages would be paid to their company.
This benefited both parties. the “employer” avoided costs of employment such as NI, holiday and sick pay . The employee suddenly had a vehicle to put lots of expenses through including their own wages or drawings . These would be lower than their original wages . If they were very clever they could make a loss. 
Of course the loser here is HMRC. No NI, no Income tax .  So IR35 came in , to establish whether someone genuinely is a “freelance” or sub contractor (usually the test is working for others ) or just a person working for the same “employer” . If it is held that the person is an employee then income tax rates apply. 

HMRC were always going to struggle here. Lineker is clearly freelance in many aspects working for various outlets (BBC, BT, Amazon) as well as other income streams from overseas sports production and media outlets. Lineker isn’t going to be able to do it all himself so employing his wife or making her a partner is not unusual. 
 

Most BBC people refer to themselves as “Freelance” and will have fixed term renewable contracts rather than contracts of employment . 
 

 

Absolutely. It could also be that some contractors are genuinely getting different or multiple engagements and taking the risks accordingly in which case paying themselves by dividend seems perfectly legitimate.

Of course that is the ruling upon what Lineker is doing though the oligopoly of broadcast arrangements that is BBC, BT, Sky etc. can still appear a little unfair to ordinary employees.

[essex canary 495]

6 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

You're an idiot.

Which bit of the response did you object to exactly and why?