HMRC has confirmed that it will not appeal the latest First-tier Tribunal decision in the long-running PGMOL employment status case.
The decision brings more than ten years of litigation over the tax status of National Group football referees to an end.
The First-tier Tribunal ruled in May 2026 that the referees were not employees for tax purposes, despite the Supreme Court having previously found that mutuality of obligation and control were present in their match-by-match engagements.
HMRC confirms it will not appeal
An HMRC spokesperson told IR35 Shield:
The tribunal decided that these referees were not employees based on the specific facts of the case, and we won’t be appealing this decision. Taking the case to the Supreme Court was important because it clarified how to distinguish employees and self-employed workers for tax purposes, and confirmed our longstanding approach.
The confirmation means the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in PGMOL v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 654 (TC) represented the final stage in the dispute.
The Tribunal found that the referees’ individual match engagements did not amount to contracts of employment.
How the case reached this point
The case concerned referees engaged by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd on a match-by-match basis during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 tax years.
HMRC argued that the referees should have been treated as employees, with PAYE and employer National Insurance due on their match fees.
The litigation reached the Supreme Court in 2024. In HMRC v PGMOL [2024] UKSC 29, the Court found that two important elements of the employment status test were present:
However, the Supreme Court did not decide whether the referees were employees overall.
The case was sent back to the First-tier Tribunal so that the wider employment status test could be applied, including the third stage of the Ready Mixed Concrete framework.
Why the referees were still not employees
In May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal decided that the referees were not employees for tax purposes.
The Tribunal accepted that mutuality of obligation and control existed during individual match engagements, but found that the overall relationship was not one of employment.
Some of the relevant factors included:
- referees could decline match appointments
- referees could withdraw from appointments
- there was no obligation to offer or accept work between matches
- refereeing was carried out alongside other full-time employment
- the engagements were short, discrete arrangements
The outcome underlines the importance of the full multi-factorial employment status test. Mutuality and control matter, but they do not automatically decide the result.
Dave Chaplin comments on the decision
Commenting on HMRC’s decision not to appeal, Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35 Shield, who attended the PGMOL hearings, told us exclusively:
The PGMOL case was the front-runner for the longstanding controversy concerning the legal principle of mutuality of obligation. Earlier courts had held that the absence of an obligation to offer and accept work was determinative, meaning an engagement could not constitute employment. HMRC challenged that position, claiming that mutuality meant payment only for work done. Both were wrong. Whilst payment is a gateway test (or pre-condition) for an engagement potentially being an employment, the nature of the mutual obligations must also be considered as part of the overall determination.
Where there is no obligation to offer and accept work, particularly for shift-based working, where the parties are free to choose when they work, that can be a strong pointer towards self-employment, since it can indicate a much looser relationship and lack of subordination, which then speaks to the degree of control.
The positive outcome of the PGMOL case, and earlier Atholl House case, is that the status principles are now clarified, and it should not be necessary for other cases to take so long to decide.
Why this matters for IR35
PGMOL was not an IR35 case. The referees were engaged directly, rather than through personal service companies.
However, the case is highly relevant to IR35 because the same core employment status principles apply when deciding whether a hypothetical contract would be one of employment.
The final outcome is important because it leaves a clear split between two stages of the analysis:
- the Supreme Court confirmed that mutuality of obligation and control can exist within short, engagement-by-engagement arrangements
- the First-tier Tribunal concluded that, looking at the whole relationship, the referees were still not employees
That distinction matters for contractors, advisers and end-clients making status decisions under the off-payroll rules.
The case shows why status assessments should not stop once mutuality and control have been identified. Other factors, including the absence of ongoing commitment, the nature of the working relationship and whether the individual is in business on their own account, still need to be considered.
FTT decision stands, but is not binding precedent
HMRC’s decision not to appeal means the litigation is now over.
However, the First-tier Tribunal decision does not become binding precedent simply because HMRC has chosen not to challenge it.
The Supreme Court’s findings on mutuality of obligation and control remain binding. The FTT’s final conclusion on the facts is persuasive, but not binding on other tribunals.
Even so, the combined effect of the decisions is significant. The case confirms that a tribunal must still stand back and assess the whole picture before deciding whether a contract is one of employment.
That approach is consistent with long-established status authorities such as Hall v Lorimer and the wider principles explained in our guide to IR35 status tests.