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
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?