InSouthern Aerial (Communications) v HMRC[2015] UKFTT 538 (28 October 2015) the FTT found that the provision of cars to two employees was a benefit in kind; however the provision of fuel was not.
The issue was whether NICs (class 1A) were payable on the provision of car and fuel to two employees who were husband and wife (ITEPA 2003 ss 114 and 149).
It was accepted that a car had been ‘made available’ to each of the two employees. The question was whether they had been made available ‘by reason of employment’. The FTT stressed that there was an irrebuttable presumption that a car provided by an employer was made available ‘by reason of employment’.
The FTT accepted that the employees loosely bore the costs of the hire purchase (HP) payments through a recharging mechanism; however ...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
InSouthern Aerial (Communications) v HMRC[2015] UKFTT 538 (28 October 2015) the FTT found that the provision of cars to two employees was a benefit in kind; however the provision of fuel was not.
The issue was whether NICs (class 1A) were payable on the provision of car and fuel to two employees who were husband and wife (ITEPA 2003 ss 114 and 149).
It was accepted that a car had been ‘made available’ to each of the two employees. The question was whether they had been made available ‘by reason of employment’. The FTT stressed that there was an irrebuttable presumption that a car provided by an employer was made available ‘by reason of employment’.
The FTT accepted that the employees loosely bore the costs of the hire purchase (HP) payments through a recharging mechanism; however ...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")