WH
Whataday
Founding member
I thought this was interesting:
In my opinion, it was ridiculous for HMRC to consider this case, and I'm not quite sure what they were thinking. They appear to have been arguing that because she appears as herself on screen, and ITV pay her to do that, it's proof that she is employed by them. The judge has thrown that out by saying it's a performance and she plays a persona of "Lorraine Kelly" on screen. The press are having a field day reporting that it's all an act, obviously.
But even without that, ITV isn't her only source of income, she has multiple contracts and her ITV show is just one of those. If she'd only had her ITV Breakfast contract, I could perhaps understand them looking into it to see if it should be considered employment.
You have to laugh at Lorraine's claim she doesn't get holiday entitlement though
Quote:
Lorraine Kelly has escaped a £1.2 million tax bill after winning a legal battle with HMRC.
The telly host became embroiled in a spat with tax authorities in 2016 after they tried to make her hand almost £900,000 in income tax and more than £300,000 in national insurance.
Kelly, 59, argued that she's freelance and not an employee of ITV, while HMRC bosses claimed she had signed a contract with the broadcaster back in 2012 to present Daybreak and her Lorraine show.
The deal was done through Kelly's company, but HMRC chiefs claimed it effectively made her an employee and made her subject to income tax and national insurance.
Kelly pointed out that she has the freedom to turn down work if it didn't suit her and insisted she doesn't get sick pay, holiday or other benefits generally given to employees.
She also argued that she's a "theatrical artist", telling the first-tier tribunal that she "she acted every day as a version of herself."
Judge Jennifer Dean sided with Kelly and she overturned the tax bill.
Judge Dean praised the telly star for her "honest and cogent evidence" and rejected claims that she was ITV's "servant."
She said: "She added: "ITV was not employing a 'servant', but rather purchasing a product, namely the brand and individual personality of Lorraine Kelly.
She was not entitled to sick pay, holiday pay or other benefits which are generally due to employees.
Overturning the tax bills, the judge concluded: "The relationship between Ms Kelly and ITV was a contract for services and not that of employer and employee...
"She presents herself as a brand, and that is the brand ITV sought when engaging her.
"All parts of the show are a performance, the act being to perform the role of a friendly, chatty and fun personality.
"Ms Kelly presents a persona of herself...quite simply put, the programmes are entertaining, Ms Kelly is entertaining.
"She may not like the guest she interviews, she may not like the food she eats, she may not like the film she viewed, but that is where the performance lies, as no doubt with other entertainers such as Ant and Dec or Richard and Judy.
"We do not doubt that Ms Kelly is an entertaining lady, but the point is that, for the time she is contracted to perform live on air, she is public 'Lorraine Kelly'."
An HMRC spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that the First Tier Tribunal has decided that the intermediary rules (also known as IR35) did not apply in this case.
“We will carefully consider the outcome of the tribunal before deciding whether to appeal.”
The telly host became embroiled in a spat with tax authorities in 2016 after they tried to make her hand almost £900,000 in income tax and more than £300,000 in national insurance.
Kelly, 59, argued that she's freelance and not an employee of ITV, while HMRC bosses claimed she had signed a contract with the broadcaster back in 2012 to present Daybreak and her Lorraine show.
The deal was done through Kelly's company, but HMRC chiefs claimed it effectively made her an employee and made her subject to income tax and national insurance.
Kelly pointed out that she has the freedom to turn down work if it didn't suit her and insisted she doesn't get sick pay, holiday or other benefits generally given to employees.
She also argued that she's a "theatrical artist", telling the first-tier tribunal that she "she acted every day as a version of herself."
Judge Jennifer Dean sided with Kelly and she overturned the tax bill.
Judge Dean praised the telly star for her "honest and cogent evidence" and rejected claims that she was ITV's "servant."
She said: "She added: "ITV was not employing a 'servant', but rather purchasing a product, namely the brand and individual personality of Lorraine Kelly.
She was not entitled to sick pay, holiday pay or other benefits which are generally due to employees.
Overturning the tax bills, the judge concluded: "The relationship between Ms Kelly and ITV was a contract for services and not that of employer and employee...
"She presents herself as a brand, and that is the brand ITV sought when engaging her.
"All parts of the show are a performance, the act being to perform the role of a friendly, chatty and fun personality.
"Ms Kelly presents a persona of herself...quite simply put, the programmes are entertaining, Ms Kelly is entertaining.
"She may not like the guest she interviews, she may not like the food she eats, she may not like the film she viewed, but that is where the performance lies, as no doubt with other entertainers such as Ant and Dec or Richard and Judy.
"We do not doubt that Ms Kelly is an entertaining lady, but the point is that, for the time she is contracted to perform live on air, she is public 'Lorraine Kelly'."
An HMRC spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that the First Tier Tribunal has decided that the intermediary rules (also known as IR35) did not apply in this case.
“We will carefully consider the outcome of the tribunal before deciding whether to appeal.”
In my opinion, it was ridiculous for HMRC to consider this case, and I'm not quite sure what they were thinking. They appear to have been arguing that because she appears as herself on screen, and ITV pay her to do that, it's proof that she is employed by them. The judge has thrown that out by saying it's a performance and she plays a persona of "Lorraine Kelly" on screen. The press are having a field day reporting that it's all an act, obviously.
But even without that, ITV isn't her only source of income, she has multiple contracts and her ITV show is just one of those. If she'd only had her ITV Breakfast contract, I could perhaps understand them looking into it to see if it should be considered employment.
You have to laugh at Lorraine's claim she doesn't get holiday entitlement though