{"id":{"repo_id":"cambridge","oai_identifier":"oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/375670"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cambridge/oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/375670","repository":{"repo_id":"cambridge","name":"Cambridge University","base_url":"https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Concept of 'Employment' In Employment Tax Law","abstract":"THE CONCEPT OF ‘EMPLOYMENT’ IN EMPLOYMENT TAX LAW Guy Mulley Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge The tax status of differing kinds of personal labour is a contested area of UK law. At its root, tax status is about whether a working individual is or is not in ‘employment’ and thus about which of two very different tax regimes applies. Tax disputes about this status have become increasingly complex, voluminous and protracted and, consequently, increasingly costly for the State, for organisations and for individuals. While there is a considerable body of literature about the subject, it, like the disputes, too often focuses on the narrower matter of a ‘contract of service’, which, juridically, is only a subset of ‘employment’. There is extensive literature about what the current problems are concerning the determination of this tax status and what the normative solutions might be. However, little consideration has been given as to the origins of these problems or as to the concept of ‘employment’ underlying the proposed normative solutions. This research adopts the approach of a novel historical investigation into the roots of the relevant law, in the process of which new material is unearthed, coupled with doctrinal analysis of the evolution of those roots, so as to enable a different understanding of the current problems. Emerging from this approach, the research presents an alternative conceptual perspective about ‘employment’, which rejects the prevalent employee-focused determination of tax status in favour of an employer-focused approach. Coupled with the finding that who bears the cost of the individual’s training is an under-utilised factor in the determination of tax status, this research offers a way to reduce the scope for disputes. In these ways, the research makes a distinct contribution to the knowledge concerning, more broadly, the fiscal concept of ‘employment’, and, more specifically, the contested tax status of differing kinds of personal labour.","abstract_html":"THE CONCEPT OF ‘EMPLOYMENT’ IN EMPLOYMENT TAX LAW Guy Mulley Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge The tax status of differing kinds of personal labour is a contested area of UK law. At its root, tax status is about whether a working individual is or is not in ‘employment’ and thus about which of two very different tax regimes applies. Tax disputes about this status have become increasingly complex, voluminous and protracted and, consequently, increasingly costly for the State, for organisations and for individuals. While there is a considerable body of literature about the subject, it, like the disputes, too often focuses on the narrower matter of a ‘contract of service’, which, juridically, is only a subset of ‘employment’. There is extensive literature about what the current problems are concerning the determination of this tax status and what the normative solutions might be. However, little consideration has been given as to the origins of these problems or as to the concept of ‘employment’ underlying the proposed normative solutions. This research adopts the approach of a novel historical investigation into the roots of the relevant law, in the process of which new material is unearthed, coupled with doctrinal analysis of the evolution of those roots, so as to enable a different understanding of the current problems. Emerging from this approach, the research presents an alternative conceptual perspective about ‘employment’, which rejects the prevalent employee-focused determination of tax status in favour of an employer-focused approach. Coupled with the finding that who bears the cost of the individual’s training is an under-utilised factor in the determination of tax status, this research offers a way to reduce the scope for disputes. In these ways, the research makes a distinct contribution to the knowledge concerning, more broadly, the fiscal concept of ‘employment’, and, more specifically, the contested tax status of differing kinds of personal labour.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Mulley, Guy"],"institution":"University of Cambridge","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["de Cogan, Dominic"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024-04-10","date_published":"2024-04-10","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:18Z","subjects":["Employment status","Employment tax","Class 1 NIC","Labour classification","ITEPA 2003 s4","SSCBA 1992 s122","Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497","Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173","Gig economy","National Insurance Industrial Injuries legilslation","Worker categorisation","Operation of PAYE","Greenham Ready Mixed Concrete"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/e3295e8b-389c-4109-ba20-ed072f4e4532/download","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.113223","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["de Cogan, Dominic"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Mulley, Guy"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2024-04-10"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cambridge"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/375670"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Employment status","Employment tax","Class 1 NIC","Labour classification","ITEPA 2003 s4","SSCBA 1992 s122","Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497","Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173","Gig economy","National Insurance Industrial Injuries legilslation","Worker categorisation","Operation of PAYE","Greenham Ready Mixed Concrete"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/e3295e8b-389c-4109-ba20-ed072f4e4532/download","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.113223"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/2e7d3aa0-5880-41fb-bfd3-56ca5323c747/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["THE CONCEPT OF ‘EMPLOYMENT’ IN EMPLOYMENT TAX LAW Guy Mulley Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge The tax status of differing kinds of personal labour is a contested area of UK law. At its root, tax status is about whether a working individual is or is not in ‘employment’ and thus about which of two very different tax regimes applies. Tax disputes about this status have become increasingly complex, voluminous and protracted and, consequently, increasingly costly for the State, for organisations and for individuals. While there is a considerable body of literature about the subject, it, like the disputes, too often focuses on the narrower matter of a ‘contract of service’, which, juridically, is only a subset of ‘employment’. There is extensive literature about what the current problems are concerning the determination of this tax status and what the normative solutions might be. However, little consideration has been given as to the origins of these problems or as to the concept of ‘employment’ underlying the proposed normative solutions. This research adopts the approach of a novel historical investigation into the roots of the relevant law, in the process of which new material is unearthed, coupled with doctrinal analysis of the evolution of those roots, so as to enable a different understanding of the current problems. Emerging from this approach, the research presents an alternative conceptual perspective about ‘employment’, which rejects the prevalent employee-focused determination of tax status in favour of an employer-focused approach. Coupled with the finding that who bears the cost of the individual’s training is an under-utilised factor in the determination of tax status, this research offers a way to reduce the scope for disputes. In these ways, the research makes a distinct contribution to the knowledge concerning, more broadly, the fiscal concept of ‘employment’, and, more specifically, the contested tax status of differing kinds of personal labour."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["d39c40cf0ff0424582b269303125e25a","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Concept of 'Employment' In Employment Tax Law"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["de Cogan, Dominic"],"dc:creator":["Mulley, Guy"],"dc:date.issued":["2024-04-10"],"dc:description.abstract":["THE CONCEPT OF ‘EMPLOYMENT’ IN EMPLOYMENT TAX LAW Guy Mulley Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge The tax status of differing kinds of personal labour is a contested area of UK law. At its root, tax status is about whether a working individual is or is not in ‘employment’ and thus about which of two very different tax regimes applies. Tax disputes about this status have become increasingly complex, voluminous and protracted and, consequently, increasingly costly for the State, for organisations and for individuals. While there is a considerable body of literature about the subject, it, like the disputes, too often focuses on the narrower matter of a ‘contract of service’, which, juridically, is only a subset of ‘employment’. There is extensive literature about what the current problems are concerning the determination of this tax status and what the normative solutions might be. However, little consideration has been given as to the origins of these problems or as to the concept of ‘employment’ underlying the proposed normative solutions. This research adopts the approach of a novel historical investigation into the roots of the relevant law, in the process of which new material is unearthed, coupled with doctrinal analysis of the evolution of those roots, so as to enable a different understanding of the current problems. Emerging from this approach, the research presents an alternative conceptual perspective about ‘employment’, which rejects the prevalent employee-focused determination of tax status in favour of an employer-focused approach. Coupled with the finding that who bears the cost of the individual’s training is an under-utilised factor in the determination of tax status, this research offers a way to reduce the scope for disputes. In these ways, the research makes a distinct contribution to the knowledge concerning, more broadly, the fiscal concept of ‘employment’, and, more specifically, the contested tax status of differing kinds of personal labour."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["d39c40cf0ff0424582b269303125e25a","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"],"dc:identifier.doi":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.113223"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/2e7d3aa0-5880-41fb-bfd3-56ca5323c747/download"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cambridge"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/375670"],"dc:rights":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/e3295e8b-389c-4109-ba20-ed072f4e4532/download","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],"dc:subject":["Employment status","Employment tax","Class 1 NIC","Labour classification","ITEPA 2003 s4","SSCBA 1992 s122","Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497","Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173","Gig economy","National Insurance Industrial Injuries legilslation","Worker categorisation","Operation of PAYE","Greenham Ready Mixed Concrete"],"dc:title":["The Concept of 'Employment' In Employment Tax Law"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:18Z"}