Gary Lineker in £5m tax fight over freelance BBC earnings
GARY LINEKER is being pursued by the taxman over a £4.9 million tax bill, it has emerged.
The Match of the Day presenter, who works on a freelance basis, set up a partnership in 2012 with his wife at the time and used it to channel his earnings from the BBC and from BT Sport.
The arrangement is legal but HMRC is pursuing presenters who used partnerships and personal service companies, arguing that they were effectively employees and should have paid tax at the same level as those on the payroll.
Documents lodged at a tax tribunal state that the total amount of income tax and national insurance contributions owed by Lineker amount to £3,621,735.90 and £1,307,160.46 respectively. The period in question covers 2013-18.
Lineker is appealing against the bill. The case has been going on for more than a year but came to light this week in documents relating to his appeal.
It is understood that HMRC will argue that as Lineker was contracted to host a minimum number of Match of the Day programmes and other presenting work for the BBC, the relationship between the corporation and him was one of employer and employee.
Lineker, 60, is the latest star to be pursued under IR35 legislation, with HMRC attempting to crack down on “disguised employees”. Eamonn Holmes is fighting a £250,000 tax bill.
Lineker will not have to pay the £4.9 million in full as the tax he has paid during the period in question will be offset against it. Sources suggested that the true figure is likely to be less than £1 million.
He set up the company, Gary Lineker Media (GLM), in 2012 with his wife, Danielle Bux. They divorced in 2016 but remain friends.
His agent, Jon Holmes, told The Daily Telegraph last night: “GLM is a partnership in which Danielle Bux was a minority partner. He has paid all personal tax. “The amount [owed] is notional and disputed. Gary remains a self-employed contractor for several organisations.” HMRC’S pursuit of BBC presenters they allege to be “disguised employees” first made headlines in 2018 when Christa Ackroyd, the former anchor of Yorkshire’s Look North programme and the corporation’s highest-paid regional presenter, was given a £419,000 bill. A year later, the BBC news presenters Joanna Gosling, David Eades and Tim Willcox were chased for £920,000 between them. They argued in court that they were self-employed and did not receive sick pay or holiday pay, and Gosling said she was on a contract that allowed bosses to sack her “without reason”. However, the court ruled that “the assumed relationships [with the BBC] were ones of employment”.
The judges in the case also criticised the BBC for steering many presenters into setting up personal service companies. That situation did not occur in Lineker’s case, although by using him as a self-employed presenter, the BBC avoided having to pay employers’ National Insurance Contributions of 13.8 per cent.
Despite some successes, HMRC has lost several cases on appeal. They include Lorraine Kelly, who was facing a £900,000 tax bill and £300,000 national insurance claim but successfully argued that she was a freelancer who decided when she worked and what should be included on her ITV show. If Lineker succeeds in his appeal, it will be HMRC’S highest-profile IR35 failure to date.
Dave Chaplin, chief executive of the Contractor calculator tax site, which offers advice to contractors and freelancers, said: “Once again, we are seeing a high-profile celebrity being targeted by HMRC in a misguided attempt to shore up the Treasury’s coffers.
“The Intermediaries Legislation, commonly called IR35, was created in April 2000 by HMRC to crack down on the ideological invention by HMRC of ‘deemed employees’.
“The fact is that high paid freelancers like Gary Lineker now pay more tax by operating via a limited company than an employee on the same salary.”
An HMRC spokesman said: “We do not comment on identifiable taxpayers or ongoing legal proceedings.
“HMRC has recently won a number of important cases, including at the Upper Tribunal, which set a useful precedent– and give welcome clarity to taxpayers and HMRC alike.”