Alan Parry Productions Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 June 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 194 (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 case concerned whether IR35 applied to Alan Parry Productions’ contracts with BSkyB for Mr Parry’s sports commentary in tax years 2013/14–2018/19. The tribunal treated the written contracts as the starting point, constructed counterfactual (hypothetical) contracts incorporating surrounding conduct, and applied the RMC three-stage test. It concluded the hypothetical contracts were contracts of employment (mutuality of obligation and control present) and dismissed the appeals, upholding HMRC’s determinations and NIC notices.
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: high
The Tribunal held that (1) written contractual terms are the starting point for Stage 1 in IR35 cases and should be interpreted by ordinary contractual principles (an Autoclenz-style "true agreement" inquiry has no place at Stage 1 in IR35 disputes); (2) in constructing the Stage 2 hypothetical contract the actual contracts are highly material but surrounding circumstances and parties’ conduct must be synthesized into the counterfactual terms; and (3) mutuality of obligation can be satisfied by an obligation to pay specified remuneration (a retainer) and a limited substitution right does not necessarily negate personal performance where the dominant feature is personal service.
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 recorded that longstanding consensual practical arrangements do not nullify contractual rights and that non‑exercise of contractual rights is not proof they did not exist. It also noted that contractual statements asserting no employment relationship are generally neutral and that, in skilled roles where day‑to‑day supervision is impractical, control should be assessed by ultimate authority rather than hands‑on supervision.