PGMOL’s ‘not finely balanced’ win over HMRC could be ‘persuasive’ in IR35 cases

HMRC yesterday refusing to rule out to ContractorUK an appeal against PGMOL referees being ruled not to be employees, isn’t stopping experts from hailing the judgment as a win for self-employment.

PGMOL v HMRC: how are experts reacting?

Re Legal Consulting says Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) being vindicated about their football referees’ employment status is the ‘first tax case in a while in favour of the self-employed.’

Bauer & Cottrell says the FTT’s ruling is a “brilliant outcome” for PGMOL and the referees, with its findings “likely to be influential in the employment status and IR35 decision-making world.”

Markel Tax echoed that, although it is only a First-tier Tribunal ruling (i.e., not precedent-setting), and can therefore be appealed, “after 10 years, and five court hearings, common sense has prevailed.”

And Carolyn Walsh, a former tax inspector, who was the fourth IR35 expert to speak yesterday exclusively to ContractorUK about the FTT’s May 1st 2026 ruling, says it puts HMRC in the sin bin.

PGMOL v HMRC: why is it a red card for the Revenue?

“For limited company contractors, PGMOL’s win effectively shows a ‘red card’ to HMRC that should make it think harder about why a freelancer carries out tasks in a particular way.

“Is day‑to‑day managerial control by the client in play? Or is the freelancer just doing what professional expertise and standards dictate, as was the case with these footy referees?

“So, the question for contractors is, are you part of the squad, or the one with the whistle?”

Citing 316 of the ruling, Walsh added: “In PGMOL at the FTT, heard in Nov 2025 but released on Friday, HMRC didn’t identify ‘skilled people doing discrete work for remuneration, with autonomy’ to be the latter.”

What has HMRC just said about losing to PGMOL at the FTT in Nov 2025?

Asked yesterday by ContractorUK whether HMRC will appeal FTT judge Geraint Williams’ ruling that the referees were not PGMOL employees, the tax authority kept its cards close to its chest.

In a statement on Monday, May 4th, 2026, an HMRC spokesperson said: “We note the decision of the tribunal, and are carefully considering our next steps.”

Markel’s Danny Batey (who is ex-Revenue) hopes that this “sorry saga” is now over, partly as the FTT’s “detailed” ruling on PGMOL referees means he “really can’t see any real prospect of success for HMRC.”

How is PGMOL’s win over HMRC being described?

A former Treasury secondee on IR35, who is also a tax lawyer, Rebecca Seeley Harris, says Friday’s judgment in favour of PGMOL is indeed “persuasive.”

The tribunal’s seemingly very thorough approach behind the 43-page judgment appears to be why.

Not only did the FTT assess the PGMOL referees as it was asked to by the Supreme Court (SC) under Ready Mixed Concrete (RMC) Stage 3 — also known as the ‘factual matrix,’ or in HMRC terms the “Evaluative Exercise,” — but it also re-examined factors like MOO and Control.

However, in probing what it called the “nature, reach and purpose” of Control, as well as the “nature and extent of the Mutual Obligations,” the FTT uncovered more hallmarks of self-employment than the SC.

In fact, the FTT took a more “holistic” view of both MOO and Control (Walsh), and, when viewed by Judge Williams in the round (RM3), the referees emerged as overwhelmingly self-employed.

What clinched PGMOL’s win over HMRC?

Re Legal Consulting, where Seeley Harris is founder, says: “The FTT decision is a useful reminder that Mutuality and Control are only the gateway, not the answer.

“What clinched it [for the football referees in PGMOL] was the ‘overall picture’ at RMC Stage 3.

“So, even though the Supreme Court [before the FTT] had already found sufficient Mutuality and Control for each match engagement, the FTT still concluded the individual contracts were not contracts of employment.”

How did FTT judge Geraint Williams imply the referees were definitely self-employed?

Status adviser Charlie Hemsworth of Bauer & Cottrell (B&C) says: “The irreducible minimum of Control and MOO at Stage 1 [was found], but [the referees were] still self-employed when the FTT stood back and looked at the whole picture, in what the judge said was ‘not a finely balanced case’.

“The FTT’s job was to take the multi-factorial approach set out in Atholl House [the ‘Kaye Adams IR35 case’]. And then to look at the overall extent and nature of MOO and Control within the contracts.

“We are reminded again that status decisions require consideration of the whole picture against the context of the situation presented. As the judgment…[by the FTT in favour of PGMOL states], it is ‘not a mechanical exercise of running through items on a checklist’, and what carries weight in one case may carry very different weight in another.”

What key HMRC argument was rejected in PGMOL at the FTT?

Markel Tax’s Danny Batey, who is a senior tax consultant, says: “I’m very pleased that it was confirmed by the FTT that although the bar may be set low for establishing MOO and Control in support of a contract of service in relation to Stages 1 and 2 of RMC, it doesn’t and shouldn’t end there, which HMRC argued that it should.

“And further examination as to the nature and extent of MOO and Control must [therefore] be undertaken at Ready Mixed Concrete Stage 3.”

Before beginning RM3 — or as FTT Judge Williams put it in the PGMOL judgment “Standing Back: the Cumulative Picture” — Mutuality was considered first.

Where is Mutuality considered in the FTT’s judgment of PGMOL v HMRC?

In the tribunal’s judgment, the consideration of Mutuality of Obligation (MOO) begins from page 13.

But at IR35 advisory B&C, Charlie Hemsworth offered the key Mutuality takeaways from the PGMOL ruling, in a statement that she sent to ContractorUK:

“On MOO, while the irreducible minimum was satisfied as the Supreme Court had already confirmed (the work/wage bargain), it was found that the obligations were narrow, short-lived, and heavily driven by choice and ambition.

“There was no obligation to offer or accept work. And crucially, the referees could withdraw even after accepting a match, right up to arrival at the ground, without consequence.”

What does the new PGMOL judgment confirm?

Markel Tax’s Danny Batey says he has held the view that being paid for undertaking work is the basis of a contract, whether that be a contract of service or a contract for services.

“So by itself, MOO isn’t — to me — a strong indicator either way of establishing employment or self-employment,” he says.

“But this new PGMOL judgment confirms that it’s the nature and extent of Mutuality Of Obligation that must be considered further.

“And to that end, Judge Williams found that the referees were free to accept or decline match-day opportunities at their discretion, and there was no ongoing obligation for PGMOL or the referees to offer or accept work.”

How might the PGMOL employment status decision help contractors under IR35 investigation?

Batey added that despite Friday’s ruling not being precedent-setting, such acknowledgements by the FTT about MOO will “certainly benefit contractors facing IR35 or status cases in the future.”

Equally likely to be helpful to contractors, Judge Williams rejected the argument from HMRC that the mere “expectation” of work — as a worker — “crystallises into obligation.”

While that interpretation of MOO challenges HMRC’s stance on Mutuality since PGMOL first hit the courts in July 2018 (at the FTT, here), one of its former inspectors doesn’t expect HMRC to budge.

If the ex-officer is right, it would therefore mean no changes to the ESM and no updates to CEST.

Due to losing PGMOL, is HMRC likely to change its stance on Mutuality of Obligation (MOO)?

“Personally, I doubt HMRC will ever change its position on employment status for tax purposes on mutuality of obligation,” begins Carolyn Walsh, who inspected for the Revenue for eight years.

“However, in light of PGMOL, the tax office must now accept that when freelancers make autonomous decisions, in line with their training and professional responsibilities, they are not integrated into client organisations as employees; rather their professional identity and regulation can lie elsewhere.”

“HMRC will continue to take the starting point that a contract for the provision of services for payment is an employment contract. But that doesn’t need to be accepted by freelancers, and it won’t be decisive for many contract professionals.

“In cases where freelancers retain substantial autonomy and independence, and make the final decision on how a service is carried out, the overall relationship can still be one of self‑employment, even where Mutuality and a framework of Control exist.”

What were the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s key findings on Control in favour of PGMOL?

On Control, the FTT found that a sufficient framework had been established at RMC Stage 1.

However, Judge Williams concluded that much of that Control framework originated from the regulatory environment surrounding refereeing, rather than traditional managerial oversight.

Charlie Hemsworth, Bauer & Cottrell’s director, reflected: “As it was the Football Association, as the regulator, setting the relevant standards and obligations, not PGMOL, it actually pointed towards independence.

“The coaching and assessment systems were ‘advisory in nature’, and participation by the highly ambitious referees was on the basis that it influenced their ability to maintain form and progress in the refereeing world.

“And the critical bit [as to why the nature and quality of control at RMC Stage 3 pointed away from a contract of employment], on match-day, the referee was ‘undoubtedly the person in charge’.

“There was ‘no right or ability for PGMOL to intervene’. This lack of control on the pitch, while the essential task was being performed, was of great significance, and so employer-style control was found to be absent.”

What about regulatory-type control and employment status?

It’s both correct and helpful for contractors to now be able to distinguish between employer-style control and regulator-type control with confidence, according to Markel Tax.

“The fact that a person is subject to regulatory control, affecting the way that they work, which is often the case for many contractors, is different from managerial or supervisory control, which one would expect in an employer and employee relationship,” says the firm’s Danny Batey.

Mr Batey added: “This clarification will certainly prove useful in arguing control with HMRC moving forward, which, in current IR35 and status enquiry cases that I am involved in, is arguing this very thing — even going as far as to say the ability for a client to terminate a contract is a ‘sanction’ which demonstrates that control exists!”

How did the PGMOL case affect HMRC’s policing of IR35?

So an about-turn could now be on the cards for some contractors under IR35 investigation, even if it was the same non-IR35 case that HMRC might have used to turn the screws on them just 18 months ago.

Oblako Ltd, run by Carolyn Walsh, explained last night: “In the PGMOL decision of September 2024, HMRC’s position on Mutuality Of Obligation got a major boost because the Supreme Court accepted that, for each engagement, work and payment can be enough to create mutual obligations.

“The SC also adopted a broad view of control, including post‑engagement sanctions and terms governing conduct, meaning a contractor would not need to be supervised minute by minute to fall ‘Inside IR35.’

“However, this new 2026 appeal by PGMOL at the FTT delved deeper with a more holistic eye and found that ‘referees exercised autonomous judgement in performing the core officiating function’.

“It also concludes that ‘control was real and consequential, but regulatory, developmental and gatekeeping in nature rather than managerial or supervisory of the core task.’”

Did the judge in PGMOL look at more minor status factors shared with IR35?

Elsewhere in the FTT’s ‘PGMOL’ judgment, more minor employment status factors like Financial Risk were considered, and these too went in favour of the sole trader referees.

Bauer & Cottrell’s Charlie Hemsworth says: “Other factors, including integration and financial risk, were also found to support self-employment due to the fact that there was no economic dependency on PGMOL.

“Most of the referees had full-time employment elsewhere, with them refereeing as a serious ‘hobby’ fitted around those commitments, rather than a primary source of income.”

What was the FTT’s ‘hobby-finding,’ and is it significant to contractors?

Markel Tax’s Danny Batey also picked up on Judge Williams’ “hobby-finding,” as the FTT described it.

“The weight apportioned by [the] judge…in relation to economic subordination [is interesting].

“It is evident that many of the referees had other jobs and income streams and were not solely reliant on PGMOL to make a living.

“While an interesting point, I am not sure how useful this will be for most contractors, as often they undertake one contract at a time and are reliant on the fees generated from said-contract.

“Nonetheless, it presents another opportunity for contractors to be able to evidence a differentiator from regular employment.”

Where does PGMOL beating HMRC leave the tax authority?

As to where the win for PGMOL and the referees leaves HMRC, Batey said — “probably licking its wounds”.

Formerly of HMRC’s compliance/risk and research division, Batey pointed out that, at the very least, there is a disputed £583,874.07 in income tax and NICs which likely exceeds HMRC's total legal costs for the case.

He added: “Although this case does not set legal precedent, it will certainly be persuasive for future employment status and IR35 cases, given the clear road path followed and set by the Supreme Court in interpreting Ready Mixed Concrete.

“Will HMRC now have to amend their guidance and specifically their CEST tool? Considering this case and how the interpretation of case law is now likely to evolve, one would hope so. But I wouldn’t hold your breath!”

Asked about the need to now update Check Employment Status for Tax, and whether its Employment Status Manual would also need rewording (following seven updates in Q4 2025 after the Supreme Court’s favourable ruling), the HMRC spokesperson declined to be drawn.