Turnbull v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 388 (TC) (10 June 2011)

Turnbull v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 388 (TC) (10 June 2011)

There was no mutuality of obligation between Mr Turnbull and Mr Bhangal, as Mr Turnbull was not obliged to provide work and Mr Bhangal was not obliged to accept work. Control over the work was exercised by Hanson, not Mr Turnbull. Therefore, the relationship was not one of employment but of self-employment.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT 388 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Brian Turnbull; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Employment Status, PAYE Liability, Self Employment Vs Employment, Mutuality of Obligation, Control Test
Tax Law Employment Law Employment Status PAYE Liability Self Employment Vs Employment Mutuality of Obligation Control Test

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Turnbull

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Bhangal was an employee of Mr Turnbull or a self-employed contractor for tax and NIC purposes

Ratio Decidendi

There was no mutuality of obligation between Mr Turnbull and Mr Bhangal, as Mr Turnbull was not obliged to provide work and Mr Bhangal was not obliged to accept work. Control over the work was exercised by Hanson, not Mr Turnbull. Therefore, the relationship was not one of employment but of self-employment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The determinations and decisions of HMRC against Mr Turnbull are set aside.