![UT/2023/000049 - [2024] UKUT 00233 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Mainpay’s arguments
Mainpay’s arguments
In this appeal, Mr Firth made the following arguments in relation to Ground 5:
HMRC’s pleading was totally inadequate for a case of carelessness and should not have been permitted to be relied on.
Mainpay had engaged a law firm, Mishcon, and a contractor, Mr Hugo, to advise in relation to the scheme, and the FTT erred in law in concluding that Mainpay and/or Mr Hugo had been careless.
The FTT erred in concluding that Mainpay’s carelessness brought about the loss of tax.
The FTT failed to deal with Mainpay’s submission that Mr Hugo was an independent contractor and it was reasonable for Mainpay to rely on his advice.
- 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