Dave Clark had worked with Sky for many years before HMRC challenged the tax treatment of his presenting work under IR35.
Clark was best known for presenting Sky Sports’ darts coverage and also worked on boxing. He originally worked for Sky as a self-employed presenter before setting up Little Piece of Paradise Ltd in 2003 and, like many other broadcasters, supplying his services through the company.
HMRC later determined that the IR35 rules should apply to his Sky contracts covering 2013/14 to 2017/18. The PAYE and National Insurance at stake came to just over £281,000, excluding interest.
Little Piece of Paradise appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, but HMRC won.
Dave Clark’s long relationship with Sky
Clark first started working for Sky in 1988, initially invoicing as a self-employed presenter.
In 2003, he began supplying his presenting services through Little Piece of Paradise Ltd. The tribunal looked at three successive contracts covering the years under appeal.
Clark’s work was closely associated with Sky’s darts coverage, although he also presented boxing and undertook other broadcasting work.
Sky paid a fixed annual fee
Clark was not paid separately for each appearance. Under the contracts, Sky agreed a fixed annual fee, which Little Piece of Paradise invoiced in monthly instalments.
The amount did not increase simply because Clark worked longer hours at an event, and it was not reduced every time he missed an individual appearance.
In return, Clark had continuing obligations to Sky throughout the contract period. The tribunal found sufficient mutuality of obligation because Sky committed to paying the agreed fee and Clark committed to providing his services.
Sky had first call on his services
The contracts gave Sky first call on Clark’s services. He could work for other broadcasters, but Sky’s requirements came first and the agreements placed restrictions on competing work.
This was not an arrangement where Sky simply contacted Clark whenever it needed a presenter. His services were reserved for Sky over fixed contractual periods, and those contracts followed one another over the years covered by the appeal.
Clark had freedom on air, but Sky still had control
Clark was an experienced broadcaster, and Sky did not tell him how to conduct every interview or prescribe exactly what he had to say while presenting.
That freedom was only part of the picture. Sky decided which events it would televise, when Clark was required to work and where the broadcasts took place. It also controlled programme production and retained the final say over what was broadcast.
The tribunal therefore found that Sky had enough control over the engagements to support HMRC’s case.
No genuine right of substitution
The written contracts referred to substitution, but Clark could not simply choose another presenter and send that person to fulfil his Sky commitments.
When Rod Studd covered for him, Sky engaged and paid Studd directly rather than treating him as a substitute supplied by Little Piece of Paradise.
The tribunal therefore found that Clark had to provide the services personally and that the hypothetical contract contained no genuine right of substitution.
Clark also worked elsewhere
Little Piece of Paradise did not earn all of its income from Sky. Clark undertook other broadcasting work and had professional interests outside the Sky contracts.
The tribunal still found that the Sky engagements fell within IR35. His other work did not change the contractual terms under which he supplied his services to Sky.
No employee benefits
Clark did not receive holiday pay, sick pay or pension rights from Sky under the contracts with Little Piece of Paradise.
He also retained professional freedom over how he presented and interviewed guests. Those features helped his case, but the tribunal gave greater weight to the fixed annual fee, personal service, first-call provisions and Sky’s control over the work.
Why Little Piece of Paradise lost
The Sky contracts tied Clark to the broadcaster for fixed periods and guaranteed him a substantial annual fee. He had to provide the services himself; Sky had first call on his time and could decide when and where he had to work.
Clark had considerable freedom once he was on air, but that did not remove Sky’s wider control over the engagement.
The tribunal concluded that, if Clark had contracted with Sky directly on the same terms, Sky would have treated him as an employee. The tribunal dismissed Little Piece of Paradise’s appeal in principle, and IR35 applied.
Little Piece of Paradise and other broadcaster cases
The decision sits alongside a growing group of broadcaster IR35 cases where contract details mattered more than the presenter’s professional independence on air.
Clark’s arrangements can also be compared with S & L Barnes Ltd, another Sky Sports case which produced a different result on its own facts.
The First-tier Tribunal decided Little Piece of Paradise, so it does not set a binding precedent for later cases.
For more past cases, take a look at our IR35 case law guide.
Judgment
Little Piece of Paradise Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2021] UKFTT 369 (TC), TC08300.