![UT/2023/000049 - [2024] UKUT 00233 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Ground 5: Conclusion
The appeal under Ground 5 is dismissed, and the FTT’s decision that the determinations and decisions for the relevant tax years were made within the relevant statutory time limit in section 36 TMA is upheld.
disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
MR JUSTICE ADAM JOHNSON
JUDGE THOMAS SCOTT
Release date: 16 August 2024
- Heading
- Introduction
- summary of relevant facts
- The 2010 Contract
- The 2013 Contract
- Obtaining assignments
- The process for paying subsistence expenses
- The requirement for consent to other employment
- Length and number of assignments
- the ftt’s determination of the issues
- grounds of appeal
- deductibility of subsistence expenses: relevant legislation
- ground 1: the 2013 contract was an overarching contract of employment
- Mainpay’s argument
- Discussion
- ground 2: a single employment contract
- The FTT’s decision
- Relevant legislation
- Mainpay’s arguments
- Discussion
- ground 3: meaning of “permanent workplace”
- The FTT’s decision
- Mainpay’s argument
- Discussion
- ground 4: use of benchmark scale rates
- Relevant legislation
- The FTT’s decision
- Mainpay’s argument
- Discussion
- ground 5: loss of tax brought about carelessly
- What the FTT decided
- Mainpay’s arguments
- HMRC’s pleading of carelessness
- Failure to take reasonable care
- Causation
- Reliance on Mr Hugo
- Conclusions