Revenue Tax Briefing Issue 43, April 2001
This report has been prepared by the Employment Status Group set up under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
The group was set up because of a growing concern that there may be increasing numbers of individuals categorised as ‘self employed’ when the ‘indicators’ may be that ‘employee’ status would be more appropriate. The purpose of the report is to eliminate misconceptions and provide clarity. It is not meant to bring individuals who are genuinely self-employed into employment status. The remit of the group is contained in the PPF document at page 18, paragraph 9 as follows:
“The Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, in consultation with the Social Partners, will seek a uniform definition of ‘employee’ based on clear criteria, which will determine the employment status of an individual”.
The group consisted of representatives from the following organisations:
The group considered two approaches in their deliberations. They considered a legislative approach - to define in statute the traits or indicators of ‘employee’ status using criteria established by common law over many years. The other approach was to reaffirm the criteria as a Code of Practice and to distribute the material to as widely a relevant audience as possible.
It was felt by some members that a statutory definition would provide clarity for anyone dealing with or considering the issue of a person’s employment status. It was felt by other members that the case law and criteria laid down by the courts over the years provided flexibility and that a statutory approach would interfere with that flexibility, while others felt that a statutory definition might prove detrimental to ‘employee’ status.
It was decided to issue the report as a Code of Practice which would be monitored by the Group with a view to reviewing the position within 12 months. While it was accepted by the Group that the Code of Practice does not have legislative effect, it was expected that its contents would be considered by those involved in disputes on the employment status of individuals or groups of individuals.
It was noted that the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs have already jointly produced a leaflet in September 1998 entitled Employed or Self-Employed – A Guide for Tax and Social Insurance. The Revenue Commissioners also produced a leaflet aimed at the Construction Industry but which would equally have general application. The Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment also have a range of explanatory leaflets which, while not specifically relating to ‘employee’ status, set out comprehensively the rights of employees under different aspects of employment law.
This Code of Practice is also recommended for the consideration of all appropriate adjudication agencies where issues concerning employment status are the subject of a dispute.
The terms “employed” and “self-employed” are not defined in law. The decision as to which category an individual belongs must be arrived at by looking at what the individual actually does, the way he or she does it and the terms and conditions under which he or she is engaged, be they written, verbal or implied or a combination of all three. It is not simply a matter of calling a job “employment” or “self-employment”.
In the Irish Supreme Court case of Henry Denny & Sons Ltd. T/A Kerry Foods v The Minister for Social Welfare - [1997] Irish Tax Reports Volume V - Page 238 the fundamental test as to whether a person who has been engaged to perform certain work performs it “as a person in business on their own account” was considered among other matters. This fundamental test was drawn from the UK case of Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security - [1969] QB 173 which has received extensive judicial approval in this country as well as in the UK and other common law jurisdictions. This fundamental test in that case was amplified by a series of specific criteria, as follows:
Does the person doing the work:
From consideration of such tests one is better able to judge whether the person engaged is a free agent and has an economic independence of the party engaging the service.
In most cases it will be clear whether an individual is employed or self-employed. However, it may not always be so obvious, which in turn can lead to misconceptions in relation to the employment status of individuals.
The Denny case which is an important precedent in the area of whether a person is engaged under a contract of service (employee) or under a contract for services (self-employed) is of assistance because of the atypical nature of the engagement. The main features of the Denny case were:
In other words, the fact that such or similar terms are included in a contract is of little value in coming to a conclusion as to the work status of the person engaged.
The criteria set out in the next paragraph should help in reaching a conclusion. It is important that the job as a whole is looked at including working conditions and the reality of the relationship, when considering the guidelines. The overriding consideration or test will always be whether the person performing the work does so “as a person in business on their own account.” Is the person a free agent with an economic independence of the person engaging the service?
While all of the following factors may not apply, an individual would normally be an employee if he or she:
While all of the following factors may not apply to the job, an individual would normally be self-employed if he or she:
The status as an employee or self-employed person will affect:
In most instances a person’s work status will be clear. It is however crucial for a person or company to ensure that a person engaged to perform a service is correctly categorised as an employee or self-employed particularly where there is a doubt. There may, in certain borderline instances, be a divergence of opinion between the contracting parties assumptions and that of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs or the adjudication systems established under Employment and Industrial Relations legislation.
While it is accepted that the operation of the PAYE and PRSI systems and compliance with the rights of employees under Employment legislation creates an administrative burden for employers, the integrity of the systems very much depends on employers operating them correctly.
Under Tax and Social Welfare law if the status of ‘employee’ is found to be appropriate the person engaging the ‘employee’ is the accountable person for any PAYE tax and PRSI deductible while that person was engaged (whether or not any deductions were made) together with appropriate interest and penalties that may arise.
There may also be penalties under various Employment Legislation for wrong categorisation of a person’s employment status.
Where there are difficulties in deciding the appropriate status of an individual or groups of individuals, the following organisations can provide assistance.
The Local Tax Office or the Local Social Welfare Office, (a listing of Tax and Social Welfare Offices is in the telephone book). Scope Section in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs may also be contacted for assistance.
If a formal decision is required, relevant facts will have to be established and a written decision as to status issued. A decision by one Department will generally be accepted by the other, provided all relevant facts were given at the time and the circumstances remain the same and it is accepted that the correct legal principles have been applied to the facts established. However, because of the varied nature of circumstances that arise and the different statutory provisions, such a consensus may not be possible in every case.
The purpose of the Employment Appeals Tribunal is to determine matters of dispute arising under the Acts relating to Redundancy Payments, Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment, Unfair Dismissals, Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency), Worker Protection (Regular Part-time Employees), Payment of Wages, Terms of Employment (Information), Maternity Protection, Adoptive Leave, Protection of Young Persons, Organisation of Working Time, Parental Leave, and Protections for Persons reporting Child Abuse. Disputes in relation to any matter arising under the above-mentioned legislation may be referred either directly, or on appeal (from a Rights Commissioner, where appropriate) to the Tribunal.
The main functions of the Labour Court are: to investigate industrial disputes under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 1990, and to issue recommendations for their settlement; to make determinations on appeals against recommendations of equality officers, or for the implementation of such recommendations; to make orders in cases of dismissal under the Employment Equality Act 1998, and the Pensions Act 1990; to decide on appeals against recommendations and decisions of Rights Commissioners under the Industrial Relations and Organisation of Working Time Acts; to establish joint labour committees, to make employment regulation orders prescribing legally enforceable pay rates and conditions in employments covered by the relevant joint labour committees; to register employment agreements, which become legally binding; to register joint industrial councils; to approve and register collective agreements under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.
The Employment Rights Information Unit of Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment may also be contacted for information on labour law issues. This Unit has a range of leaflets on employment law that are available on request.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is the single umbrella organisation for trade unions in Ireland representing a wide range of interests.
The Irish Business and Employers Confederation represents and provides economic, commercial, employee relations and social affairs services to some 7,000 companies and organisations from all sectors of economic and commercial activity.