HMRC won't appeal NI decision
Two businesses paid their employees’ car allowances. They said no NI was payable on these to the extent the cars were used for business. HMRC argued the payments were just earnings and so liable to NI. How did the Upper Tribunal (UT) rule?
The Upper Tribunal (UT) simultaneously considered two similar but unconnected disputes: Laing O’Rourke Services Ltd (L) v HMRC and Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd (W) v HMRC . Both companies paid their employees car allowances which HMRC argued were earnings liable to Class 1 employees’ and employers’ NI. L and W argued that the special rules overrode the normal earnings rule so that the payments should be disregarded for NI purposes.
The UT confirmed that the car allowances were earnings. In respect of the “disregard” rules, it could not find anything that required payments to be reimbursement of motor expenses already incurred. In fact, when the NI rules were created they were intended to mirror the tax rules as far as possible, and they apply the exemption regardless of timing. In reality, motor expenses, apart from fuel, tend to be incurred sporadically, e.g. insurance, servicing, so to limit the tax and NI exemption to expenses already incurred would be illogical and defeat the purpose of the rules. The UT therefore ruled for L and W and against HMRC, which has now confirmed it will not appeal the decision.
By confirming that it won’t appeal, HMRC has opened the door to NI refunds going back six years. It is possible that the rules will be changed to prevent claims for future years though.
Related Topics
-
Should you voluntarily payroll benefits in kind?
The window to sign up to voluntarily payroll non-mandatory benefits in kind for 2027/28 will open in November. Is it worth volunteering to pay HMRC earlier than required or should you wait until it becomes mandatory in 2028/29?
-
Wise tax statement errors could affect 4,000 customers
Around 4,000 UK customers of financial services provider Wise have been told that tax statements issued between 2021 and 2025 contained incorrect figures. The errors could have resulted in taxpayers paying too much or too little income tax and capital gains tax (CGT). What should affected customers check?
-
CT61