![UT/2023/000049 - [2024] UKUT 00233 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Mainpay’s argument
Mainpay’s argument
On the meaning of “regularly attends”, Mr Firth argued as follows:
“Regularly” means sufficiently often, which requires some level of frequency.
The FTT appeared to think that regular attendance meant “attendance when required to do so”, but how could that interpretation apply to a worker who (say) could choose to work from home on an assignment?
The FTT’s interpretation renders the wording of section 339(2)(a) irrelevant and otiose.
It is misconceived to suggest that Mainpay’s interpretation leads to an arbitrary distinction when that is clearly what the words of the legislation require.
HMRC offer no meaning for “regularly”, and Mainpay’s suggested meaning is plainly the intended meaning.
- 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