I'm in charge

The 40-page judgement of the Tax Tribunal featuring HMRC versus Christa Ackroyd Media Ltd is a hoot. Christa was, until 2013, co-presenter of Look North from Leeds, having been poached from their ITV rival, Calendar back in 2001. In 2013, the BBC abruptly terminated her seven-year contract. HMRC says that CAM Ltd was liable for back income tax, equivalent to the amount Christa would have paid as a direct employee of the BBC. Ignorance of the law in these matters was no defence. Though most papers todaysuggest other BBC presenters will be trembling at the outcome of the tribunal, the Tribunal is not so sure. "We understand that the present appeal is one of a number of other appeals involving television presenters and personal service companies. However, this is not a lead case as such."

The findings offer a note about Christa's performance before the Tribunal. "Ms Ackroyd’s evidence did, we think, reflect the fact that she is more used to interviewing than being interviewed. It seemed to us that at various points in her cross-examination she was more concerned with understanding where the line of questioning was going than in giving direct answers to the questions being asked. We had to remind her to answer the questions being asked on several occasions. We do not consider that she was deliberately trying to evade difficult questions, but we did form the impression that she was keen to identify opportunities to present her case in the best light. She was clearly aware that cases such as this turn on value judgments as to the significance of various features, some pointing towards employment and some pointing towards self-employment. In her evidence she was keen to highlight those features which she considered would help her case, occasionally at the expense of directly answering the questions being asked."

There's then a long diversion about how much control Christa had at Look North - which her lawyers said should limit her liability. She clearly thought she edited large parts of the programme, selected her own stories, trained most of the staff, set up the studio, decided which shifts she would do, and much more. The Tribunal deemed this to be a red herring (but it's still a good read).

The Tribunal clearly found that the BBC pushed Christa towards the contract via a personal service company (something the BBC has sought to deny in many other fora).

"Ms Ackroyd’s evidence which we accept is that it was the BBC who suggested that she should work using a personal service company and that Ms Ackroyd agreed to do so. This contract and later the Contract were drafted and negotiated by the “Talent Rights Group” of the BBC rather than by BBC News. In 2001 CAM Ltd had already been incorporated by Ms Ackroyd and when the BBC suggested she should use a personal service company she decided to use CAM Ltd. The BBC did not want Ms Ackroyd to be an employee and we also infer that they did not want any potential liability for PAYE and national insurance if she were to be classified as an employee. Ms Ackroyd had never previously come across the term “personal service company”. She checked the terms of the arrangement with her accountant, Mr Biggin, who advised her that everything was in order.

Agents and others will be delighted that the full terms of Ms Ackroyd's contract are appended to the tribunal's findings, including the marvellous Clause H. Are there similar in other news presenters' contracts ?

"In addition the BBC agrees to make payment to the Company of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pounds (£7,500) at the end of June and the end of December in each year of this Agreement SUBJECT TO the programming of the Broadcaster consistently and significantly exceeding the ratings of its commercial competition (in the opinion of the BBC) over the relevant preceding Six Month period."