HMRC has confirmed to ContractorCalculator that it will not appeal the fifth and final decision in the long-running PGMOL employment status case, bringing an end to almost a decade of litigation.
The First-tier Tribunal ruled on 1 May 2026 that football referees engaged by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) were self-employed for tax purposes. HMRC had 56 days to seek permission to appeal, with the deadline expiring on 26 June. HMRC has now confirmed that the judgment will stand.
HMRC's explanation raises questions
Responding to ContractorCalculator, an HMRC spokesperson said:
"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."
That final sentence is likely to surprise many employment status specialists.
The Supreme Court clarified the law in 2024 and rejected a central plank of HMRC's long-held position, namely that mutuality of obligation meant payment only for work completed. Instead, the Court confirmed that the nature and extent of the obligations between the parties is an important factor when carrying out the full employment status assessment.
Nor was mutuality the only point on which the courts dismissed HMRC's position. In the earlier Atholl House litigation, the Court of Appeal rejected HMRC's argument that establishing a sufficient framework of control created a presumption of employment. Instead, it confirmed that the nature and degree of control must be weighed alongside all the other relevant factors during the final multi-factorial assessment. The Supreme Court subsequently endorsed that same approach in PGMOL.
Why appeal if the approach was already correct?
Commenting on HMRC's decision, Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35 Shield, who attended the PGMOL tribunal hearings, said:
"HMRC continues to maintain that its longstanding approach to employment status is correct, which begs the question why they got the referees' case wrong for 10 years.
"HMRC has consistently argued that mutuality of obligation simply means payment for work completed. However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, holding that the nature of the parties' obligations was central to determining employment status.
"Furthermore, if the facts of the case are entered into HMRC's Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool, it fails to reach the correct conclusion, instead returning an 'indeterminate' result and suggesting the case is finely balanced. The judge reached the opposite view, stating that the case was not finely balanced and that the referees did not exhibit the hallmarks of employment." Only recently, a freedom of information request by IR35 Shield revealed that use of CEST had fallen by another 43% year-on-year and 71% in the past two years, signalling that businesses are abandoning HMRC's status guidance tool.
What does this mean for contractors?
Although PGMOL concerned football referees working as sole traders rather than contractors, it applies the same employment status principles used in IR35 cases.
The tribunal concluded that the referees had no ongoing obligation to accept work, retained significant autonomy, and were subject primarily to regulatory rather than employer-style control. Standing back and considering the relationship as a whole, the tribunal found the engagements lacked the defining hallmarks of employment.
HMRC's decision not to pursue a sixth hearing finally closes a decade-long employment status dispute and leaves renewed scrutiny of HMRC's employment status guidance and CEST tool, which many practitioners argue no longer reflect the legal principles now settled by the Supreme Court.