Home / CEST accuracy study / Richard Alcock, IT contractor
Richard Alcock, IT contractor
The Commissioners for HMRC v RALC Consulting Limited · [2024] UKUT 00099 (TCC) · Upper Tribunal, 2024 · read the judgment
The Upper Tribunal found material errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal decision, set it aside, and remitted the appeal to be heard afresh by a new panel.
Why this case is excluded
No status determination survives to compare CEST against. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal decision and remitted the appeal rather than remaking it, saying it was not "sufficiently equipped with appropriate findings of fact to remake the Decision". Scoring CEST against a decision that has been set aside, or against a first-instance finding an appellate tribunal has held to be legally flawed, would be scoring it against an answer that is no longer the law of the case. The tribunalOutcome field above is a placeholder required by the type and carries no meaning while excluded is set.
It stays published because which cases were left out, and on what grounds, is part of what makes a small study checkable.
Why this is a Chapter 8 case
RALC Consulting Limited was the intermediary supplying Mr Alcock to Accenture and DWP, and the appeal concerned whether the hypothetical contracts would have been contracts of employment under section 49 ITEPA. The case passes the Chapter 8 gate and is excluded for a different reason entirely, recorded in exclusionReason below.
Every answer, and why
This is the contestable part of the study. Each row is a question CEST asks, the option we chose, and the finding in the judgment that drove it. Confidence in this encoding is recorded as medium.
If you think an answer is wrong, it is a specific row you are disagreeing with, which is the point of publishing them.
Personal Service
Has a substitute ever actually worked in your place on this engagement?
No substitution has happened on this engagement
Not encoded from findings of fact. This case is excluded, and the answers above are placeholders that satisfy the type. They must not be read as an encoding of the judgment and must not be scored.
If you needed to send a substitute, could the client reject them?
Yes — the client could reject a substitute, or has an approval veto
Control
Can the client move you to different tasks or work areas on this engagement?
Yes, with my agreement
Who decides how you do your work — the methods and approach you use?
I agree how to do it with others (client team, colleagues)
Who controls when you work — the days and hours?
The client decides my schedule
Who decides where you carry out the work?
I cannot choose — I must work at the client's location
Financial Risk
Did you purchase and supply significant raw materials for this work?
No
Did you provide significant specialist equipment of your own for this work?
No
Did you use your own vehicle as a primary work tool on this engagement?
No
Did you incur significant other work-related expenses at your own risk?
No
Are significant work expenses simply not applicable to this type of role?
Yes — expenses are not relevant for this kind of work
How are you mainly paid for this work?
Per time period — a weekly or monthly rate
If you delivered substandard work, what would happen?
Fixing it would be covered within my normal rate
Integration
Do you receive employee-type benefits from the client?
No
Do you manage any of the client's employees — acting as their line manager?
No
Do you have direct contact with the client's customers or end clients?
No
Ongoing Obligation & Business Independence
Is the client obliged to offer you work, and are you obliged to accept it, throughout this engagement?
No — either party can stop without obligationCEST does not assess this
When this contract ends, would you be surprised if the client did not offer you more work or extend?
Yes — I expect it to continue and would be surprised if it didn'tCEST does not assess this
Are you working for multiple clients simultaneously, or have you actively marketed your services to others in the past 12 months?
Yes — I have or actively seek multiple clientsCEST does not assess this
Do you hold professional indemnity or public liability insurance in your own name or through your company?
NoCEST does not assess this
This case is one of 10 encoded so far. The method, the limits and the full results are on the study page.
Check my own contract