Mainpay’s argument
Mainpay’s argument
In this appeal, Mr Firth argued as follows:
As a matter of law, it is possible for reasonable estimates of expenditure to be reimbursed, without any statutory dispensation. A reimbursement is deductible under section 338 ITEPA if it is possible to prove by evidence on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable estimate of the amount has been made. HMRC’s benchmark rates demonstrate what a reasonable estimate would be, so if they are followed, the absence of a dispensation is irrelevant.
The statutory basis permitting HMRC to grant dispensations under section 65 ITEPA cannot authorise what would otherwise be impermissible deductions. It follows that the position described at (1) must be the basis for HMRC issuing the scale rates and granting dispensations.
- 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
![UT/2023/000049 - [2024] UKUT 00233 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)