The 'IR35' rules to prevent the exploitation of personal service companies for tax avoidance were introduced in April 2000, following a long and contentious consultation exercise. This legislation remains unpopular among freelancers who use this corporate form to provide services. This note looks at debates as to the effectiveness of these rules and wider concerns about the use of employment intermediaries to avoid tax, before discussing recent developments as to their application in the public and private sector.Jump to full report >>
In April 2000 the Labour Government introduced new rules for the tax treatment of personal service companies (PSCs) in the light of concerns that this corporate form was being exploited to avoid tax.
The term ‘personal service company’ (PSC) is not defined in law, but is usually taken to mean a limited company, the sole or main shareholder of which is also its director, who, instead of working directly for clients, or taking up employment with other businesses, operates through their own company. For any engagement the client will pay the PSC for the individual’s services without first deducting income tax or employee National Insurance contributions (NICs) as it would for any employee under PAYE.
There are several possible tax advantages to this type of arrangement for the individual, further to the wider potential benefits from freelancing. First, the range of expenses which the PSC may set against its taxable profits will be much wider than that allowed an employee to set against their taxable income. Second, there will be a cash-flow benefit in avoiding tax being deducted at source each month. Third, the individual may be in a position to be paid dividends by their PSC, as an alternative to only being paid earnings as the PSC’s employee, and this form of income would not be subject to NICs. There are also potential financial benefits for the client organisation to this arrangement: they do not incur employer NICs on the payment they make to the PSC, and do not have to provide various rights and entitlements that employees enjoy (such as holiday pay, sick pay and working time protections).
By the late 1990s there were concerns that PSCs were being widely used to disguise the fact that in many situations individuals were working effectively as their client’s employee, while garnering these tax benefits. To counter this type of tax avoidance in the March 1999 Budget the Labour Government announced it would introduce provisions to allow the tax authorities to look through a contractual relationship, where services provided through an intermediary such as a PSC, but the underlying relationship between the worker and the client had the characteristics of employment. In those circumstances, the engagement would be treated as employment for tax purposes. Initially it was proposed that it would be the responsibility of the client organisation to determine if any engagement met this test.
The proposals proved highly contentious. Many businesses raised concerns as to the potential administrative burden in having to assess each and every contract this way, in part because there is no simple statutory test to determining employment status for tax purposes. After consultation the Labour Government announced a new approach. Intermediaries would be required to assess whether:
If so, the intermediary would be required to account for tax on this payment in just the same way as employee earnings (ie, charge income tax under PAYE and Class 1 NICs).
Provision to this effect was included in the Finance Act 2000 with effect from the 2000/01 tax year. The legislation is commonly called ‘IR35’, after the number of the Budget press notice which first announced this measure.
Over the next decade IR35 remained controversial in the freelance community, although the Labour Government consistently opposed calls for it to be scrapped.
In July 2010 the Coalition Government announced the newly-established the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) would review small business taxation, and this would include exploring “alternative legislative approaches to IR35.” The OTS completed its report just before the 2011 Budget. It set out several options for reform, including a merger of income tax and NICs which would make IR35 obsolete. In the absence of major structural change the OTS suggested that IR35 might be suspended with a view to being abolished, or amended to exempt certain businesses, or retained but with certain changes in its application. In the 2011 Budget the Government announced that IR35 would be retained “as abolition would put substantial revenue at risk,” though its administration would be improved.
In 2012 there were concerns about the numbers of senior staff in the civil service being employed through a PSC. In May that year the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, gave details of a review of these arrangements, and of changes to the way departments could appoint individuals ‘off payroll’. The Minister also announced a consultation – foreshadowed in the 2012 Budget – on amending IR35: in brief, anyone providing their services through a PSC who had been taken on with a senior, controlling role for their client would be taxed as an employee. In the Autumn Statement the Government announced it would not proceed with this proposal “because HMRC’s new approach to policing IR35, along with the measures introduced in the public sector this year, are sufficient to prevent the loss through disguised employment in this way.”
In in its first Budget following the 2015 General Election, the Conservative Government confirmed it would “engage with stakeholders this year on how to improve the effectiveness of existing intermediaries legislation.“ A discussion document was published later that month; responses were invited by the end of September 2015. On the matter of compliance, the paper noted, “in 2011/12 around 10,000 people paid tax under IR35, an estimated 10% of those who should have paid tax on at least part of the income their PSC receives under the legislation.”
One question raised in this document was whether the onus for determining whether IR35 applied or not should be placed on the client, rather than the PSC: “under such an arrangement, those who engage a worker through a PSC would need to consider whether or not IR35 applies (in the same way as they would need to consider whether a worker should be self-employed or actually be an employee), and, if so, deduct the correct amounts of income tax and NICs as they would for direct employees.” The paper also asked for views on whether the tests to determine if IR35 applies could be simplified, “such as requiring an engagement to last a certain minimum amount of time to be considered one of employment.”
In November 2015 there were reports that the Government was planning a change in these rules so that any contractor whose placement lasted more than a month would have to go onto the client’s payroll as their employee. However, despite expectations, the Government did not announce major reforms to the rules at this time.
Several other measures have been introduced to prevent this corporate form being used for avoid tax. First, in the 2014 Budget the Coalition Government confirmed proposals to tackle the use of offshore intermediaries to avoid tax, and to prevent agencies based in the UK using contrived contracts to disguise employment as self-employment. Second, in November 2015 the current Government announced that from April 2016 it would “restrict tax relief for travel and subsistence expenses for workers engaged through an employment intermediary” where the intermediaries legislation applied.
Third, in the 2016 Budget Government proposed that from April 2017 public sector bodies would have new duty to ensure any contractors that they took on were complying with IR35. A consultation exercise was launched in May 2016, and in the 2016 Autumn Statement the Government confirmed it would proceed with this reform. At the time the Government ruled out adopting the same approach to the application of IR35 in the private sector, or introducing a new test for applying IR35 based on the length of the contractor’s contract.
With the implementation of these new rules there was considerable speculation that the Government would extend the new duty for contractors’ clients to the private sector at some point. In the Autumn 2017 Budget the Government announced it would “carefully consult on how to tackle non-compliance in the private sector, drawing on the experience of the public sector reforms.” This consultation was launched on 18 May 2018, and closed on 10 August. The consultation paper stated that extending the public sector reform to the private sector is the Government’s lead option, though it noted “public authorities faced challenges in implementing the reform and that this is a concern for businesses and individuals working in the private sector.” HMRC also published a short factsheet on the consultation, and an independent review it had commissioned on the impact of the public sector reforms on client organisations at this time.
In his 2018 Budget the Chancellor Philip Hammond confirmed that the Government would proceed with this reform, but the new rules would come in from April 2020 and apply to large and medium-sized businesses only. At this time the Government confirmed it would undertake a further consultation on the detailed operation of the new rules. This second consultation was launched on 5 March, and closed on 28 May. The Government published draft legislation to be included in the Finance Bill on 11 July, including provisions to this effect, as well as a summary of the responses made to the consultation, and a factsheet on this reform. In response to concerns that have been raised, the Government has underlined that the changes to the off-payroll working rules will not be retrospective: “HMRC will not carry out targeted campaigns into previous years when individuals start paying employment taxes under IR35 for the first time.” It is estimated that this measure will raise around £3.3 billion over the next five years.
This paper discusses these developments; a second paper looks at the introduction of IR35 and its first years of operation.
 As the Office for Tax Simplification has noted, “employment status is established ultimately by case law but, on an everyday basis, it is up to the business or individual to figure out whether they are employed or self-employed.” (OTS, Employment status report, March 2015 para 2.1).
 Inland Revenue Budget press notice IR35, Countering avoidance in the provision of personal services, 9 March 1999
 HM Treasury press notice 29/10 20 July 2010
 OTS, Small business tax review, March 2011 pp5-6. The debate over merging tax and NICs is discussed in: National Insurance contributions: an introduction, Commons Briefing paper CBP4517, 17 July 2017.
 op.cit. p8
 Autumn Statement, Cm 9362, November 2016 para 4.11. Provision to this effect is included in the Finance Act 2017 (specifically section 6 and Schedule 1).
 HM Treasury press notice, Government to consult on tax avoidance in the private sector, 18 May 2018. See also PQs 150081-2, 13 June 2018
 HMT/HMRC, Off-payroll working in the private sector: consultation document, May 2018 pp22
 HMRC, Factsheet: off-payroll working in the private sector, May 2018
 HC Deb 29 October 2018 c661. see also, HMT/HMRC, Off-payroll working in the private sector: summary of responses, October 2018
 HMRC, Off-payroll working rules from April 2020: policy paper & consultation document, March 2019, Treasury Minister Mel Stride made a statement on publication: HC Deb 4 March 2019 cc736-7.
 HM Treasury, Off-payroll working rules from April 2020: Factsheet, July 2019
 HMRC, Rules for off-payroll working from April 2020: tax information & impact note, 11 July 2019