Justice Murray the judge in the case decided that the question of whether…. A contract is one “of service” or “for service” should be resolved by reference to the following five questions:

1. Does the contract involve the exchange of wage or other remuneration for work?
2. If so, is the agreement one pursuant to which the worker is agreeing to provide their own services, and not those of a third party, to the employer?
3. If so, does the employer exercise sufficient control over the putative employee to render the agreement one that is capable of being an employment agreement?
4. If these three requirements are met the decision maker must then determine whether the terms of the contract between employer and worker interpreted in the light of the admissible factual matrix. This, having regard to the working arrangements between the parties as disclosed by the evidence, are consistent with a contract of employment, or with some other form of contract having regard. In particular, to whether the arrangements point to the putative employee working for themselves or for the putative employer.
5. Finally, it should be determined whether there is anything in the particular legislative regime under consideration that requires the court to adjust or supplement any of the foregoing.

In this case, Justice Murray found that Revenue’s Tax Appeal Commissioner was entitled to conclude that the drivers were employees for the purposes of income tax.

Businesses must ensure that appropriate taxes, encompassing both salary and any notional pay, are deducted from their employees’ salaries and timely remitted to the Revenue under the PAYE system.