![UT/2023/000049 - [2024] UKUT 00233 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
What the FTT decided
What the FTT decided
Before the FTT, Mr Firth argued that there was no failure to take reasonable care on the part of Mainpay in view of the advice which it took. He also criticised HMRC’s statement of case as being vague on this issue and making no pleading at all in relation to causation (ie how HMRC alleged any carelessness by Mainpay “brought about” the loss of tax): FTT[198].
Having considered the position and the advice taken by Mainpay, the FTT rejected the complaint as to pleading and concluded that Mainpay did fail to take reasonable care and that this resulted in a loss of tax: FTT[207]. As a result, the six-year time limit in section 36 TMA for making the assessments and determinations applied, and they were as a result validly issued.
- 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