Tyler Security Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 October 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1250 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This Tribunal considered whether dog-handlers supplied by Tyler Security to end-clients for 2017–18 fell within the Agency legislation (ss 44–47 ITEPA) so that payments to handlers were taxable as earnings. The Tribunal found handlers personally provided services, that the manner of provision was subject to supervision, direction and control by the agency and/or clients, and upheld HMRC’s reg 80 determination (varied to £88,503.70). The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The decision applies a factual test for s 44(1)(a): whether an individual actually personally provides services, not whether there is a contractual obligation to do so. For s 44(2)(a) the Tribunal held that supervision, direction or control can be established by a combination of contractual terms and factual arrangements, including control split between agency and client, and need not extend to every aspect of performance — incidental or ancillary control can suffice.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal indicated that VAT characterisation of the supply is irrelevant to the application of the Agency legislation, and that absence of written individual contracts does not preclude implying a right of supervision, direction or control from the contractual and factual circumstances.