Post by Steve on Apr 1, 2023 0:00:56 GMT
Since he paid tax on all but Danielle Bux's £30k per year of the proceeds I can't see how £4.9M arises (see para 49). But as I read it, his post 2021 position where he no longer contracts with BT Sport probably is as an employee. This judgement only directly applies to 2013-18.
And I bet HMRC now move to close what looks like a loophole.
He was using a "public service company" to avoid income tax / NI, and the BBC / BT Sport played along with this to avoid employer NI, holiday pay, pensions etc.
Basically you set up a Limited company and pay yourself the max before tax and NI are due. You then take the rest as share dividends which is taxed significantly lower than income tax / NI combined. The company of course has to pay corporation tax, but that is on profits. HMRC say this is all bollocks and he should have been employed directly by the BBC and BT Sport on PAYE... hence the missing tax. Danielle Bux would have been employed (for doing fuck all) just to keep the profits of the company down.
What HRMC have done in the last couple of years is said to employers that if they get employment status wrong they will get hit hard, so this has all but ended public service companies. They have done this because of precisely what is going on with Lineker now. Rich twats with fancy lawyers arguing the toss so their clients can avoid being paid via PAYE. ie it is easier just to threaten companies with big fines, rather than have endless arguments in court.
BTW he 100% should have been employed by the BBC. He does not meet any of the tests for self-employment:
1) He takes direction from BBC staff.
2) He has to do the presenting in person, he cannot send a replacement.
3) He uses BBC tools to do the job.
That dividend low tax folly is exploited by many. Incl one R Sunak