Hall v Lorimar

(1994) 66 TC 349, CA

A freelance vision mixer was employed on short-term contracts which lasted for one or two days. The Inland Revenue assessed him on the basis that he was an employee. The taxpayer appealed, contending that the income should be taxed as trading income.

The taxpayer won his appeal. The fact that he only provided his personal skills and did not provide any equipment did not preclude self-employed status. On the facts presented, Lorimar worked for approximately 20 different companies in a year and was not dependant upon any of them in isolation. It was also pointed out that the risk of having no work to do is as great for a casual employee as for a self-employed individual, but that the risk of bad debts and outstanding invoices was not one normally associated with employment.