The tax tribunal decision of the fifth hearing in the long-running tax status case of Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) v HMRC was promulgated on 01 May 2026, where Judge Geraint Williams upheld the appeal in favour of PGMOL.
After more than a decade of litigation, and following a remittal from the Supreme Court, the First-tier Tribunal has reached the same conclusion as originally reached eight years ago by Judge Sarah Falk: that the referees were self-employed.
Commenting on the ruling, Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35 tax advisory, IR35 Shield, who attended the hearing in person, said the decision is "a tour de force on how to correctly apply the clarified principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 2024. Most tellingly, Judge Williams made clear that this was not a finely balanced case, with the cumulative effect of the evidence leading to a clear conclusion."
Whilst the PGMOL case concerns sole traders, it applies the same case law as IR35 decisions, making it highly relevant for firms engaging professional contractors, particularly those working on a shift basis.
Background to the PGMOL ruling
The case centred on whether National Group football referees, engaged as sole traders, should be treated as employees for tax purposes. HMRC argued that PGMOL should have operated PAYE and paid employer National Insurance contributions, while PGMOL maintained that the referees were self-employed.
The dispute has a long procedural history. PGMOL won at the First-tier Tribunal in 2018, and HMRC's appeal to the Upper Tribunal failed in 2020. The Court of Appeal later identified legal errors, which PGMOL appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clarified once and for all the proper case law principles to follow and sent the case back to the first-tier tribunal for reconsideration.
Key parts of the PGMOL ruling
Mutuality of obligation in depth
While basic mutuality was present, meaning payment for work done, the tribunal went further and examined the nature and extent of the obligations, as directed by the Supreme Court.
The engagements were found to be episodic, with no obligation on PGMOL to offer work or on referees to accept it. This lack of ongoing obligation, whilst not determinative on its own, was a strong pointer away from employment.
Crucially, the tribunal rejected the idea that mutuality is only about payment. It confirmed that the mere expectation of future work, even if regularly undertaken, does not create a legal obligation, undermining HMRC's long-standing position across all five hearings.
Control is not a binary test
On control, the tribunal rejected HMRC's argument that, once a framework of control exists, a presumption of employment should follow, an argument already dismissed by the Atholl House case in April 2022. Instead, the tribunal followed the Supreme Court's principles, holding that courts should assess both the nature and the degree of control.
The tribunal analysed different types of control, including regulatory control. It made a key distinction, opining that control arising from an external regulatory or professional framework does not carry the same weight as managerial control when determining status.
Autonomy on the pitch was decisive
A critical factor was that referees were entirely autonomous when officiating matches. They had the final authority to apply the Laws of the Game, and any oversight came from the Football Association rather than PGMOL. This distinction proved crucial, with the tribunal concluding that control over how the work was performed did not sit with PGMOL, reinforcing the conclusion that the referees were not employees.
What is the impact on future cases?
First-tier Tribunal rulings do not create binding precedent, but this ruling is the first to explore how the Supreme Court's clarified legal principles must be applied. It is a persuasive authority.
The tribunal reinforced that the first two stages of the Ready Mixed Concrete test, personal service and a framework of control, are very low thresholds, and that meeting them does not indicate employment. Instead, the real assessment happens at stage three, where all factors must be considered in the round.
Importantly, the tribunal accepted that regulatory control can satisfy stage two, but carries far less weight at stage three, a distinction which is likely to have significant implications for future status disputes.
Chaplin says: "Despite HMRC's attempts to argue strong mutuality and strong control, those arguments roundly failed. HMRC's guidance will now need to be updated to properly reflect how stage three of the test should be applied."
HMRC's CEST tool under pressure
The ruling raises serious questions about HMRC's Check Employment Status for Tax tool.
The logic underpinning CEST has not been updated since November 2019, despite major legal developments in 2022 and 2024, which contradict HMRC's historic view of the law, elements of which have been dismissed.
CEST typically only provides an "outside IR35" result where there is no personal service or control, effectively relying on single-factor determinations at stages 1 and 2 of Ready Mixed Concrete. Chaplin says: "These are very low bars, and most contractor engagements will meet those conditions, thereby requiring a full multi-factorial determination to be conducted. The issue with CEST is that when a full assessment is considered, it either produces an indeterminate result or defaults to employment in most cases.
"Given how demonstrably misaligned with the law CEST now is, it should be temporarily withdrawn and sent back to the workshop."
Why the PGMOL ruling matters to firms
If you engage contractors, especially on a shift or assignment basis, this case is highly relevant. It reinforces that:
- You cannot rely on simple tests like control or personal service alone
- You must assess the full relationship in the round
- Regulatory frameworks do not automatically point to employment
- Lack of obligation between assignments is a strong indicator of self-employment
The PGMOL case, after more than a decade, has reaffirmed that employment status must be determined through a careful, multi-factorial analysis.
HMRC now has 56 days to decide whether to appeal the decision and seek permission for a sixth hearing. Although Chaplin notes that the tax under dispute is £583,874, which may already be less than the legal costs incurred by HMRC to date, thereby making further appeals difficult to justify for proportionality reasons.