![[2025] UKUT 061 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Was the claimant’s trade, profession or vocation “organised and regular”?
Was the claimant’s trade, profession or vocation “organised and regular”?
The Tribunal didn’t make any clear finding as to whether or not the claimant’s trade, profession or vocation was “organised and regular”. That would amount to a material error of law if its decision had been that the claimant was entitled to working tax credit, because each of the conditions in regulation 4 of the 2002 Regulations must be satisfied for entitlement to be established. Because the FtT Decision was that the claimant was not entitled to working tax credit, even if that omission amounts to an error of law, it cannot be material because, had the Tribunal made a finding on that issue, the outcome of the appeals would have been no different whatever that finding was.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Factual background
- Legal framework
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The grounds of appeal and the parties’ submissions
- Analysis
- Was the claimant engaged in carrying on a trade, profession or vocation?
- Was the claimant’s enterprise carried on “on a commercial basis”?
- Was the claimant’s trading enterprise carried on “with a view to the realisation of profits”?
- Was the claimant’s trade, profession or vocation “organised and regular”?
- Was the claimant’s 16 hours of work per week done “for payment or in expectation of payment”?
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Conclusions