HMRC provided the following regarding ‘9001’ to the appellant: "When a Test return (that would otherwise have passed) is filed, your software is provided with the '9001' response. This is interpreted by your software in whatever way the software provider has decided to do this. However, they will generally have just used the wording in the developers' support material "This submission would have been successfully processed if sent under non-test conditions" or at least used it as a base for whatever wording they actually display. For a Live submission that passes validation, you would get the '9004' response. The wording on that response is "The EOY Return has been processed and passed full validation" but again, how it's displayed to the customer can vary a bit depending on the software's design. All this information is on the HMRC website under 'File your Employer Annual Return online: P 35 and P 14s." This is not a new issue and several other companies have had their appeals dismissed for the same reason. Following the court’s recommendations, hopefully HMRC will amend the confirmation emails received. The full case can be viewed by clicking this link - Law Costing Ltd v Revenue & Customs 15 June 2011 In a claim for indirect religious discrimination a court has handed down its decision that an employer can rely upon cost alone in order to justify an otherwise indirectly discriminatory policy. Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports: In this case Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd Mr Cherfi, a Muslim, was employed as a security guard and regularly left the site on a Friday to attend a Mosque. This was stopped by G4S on the grounds that they were contractually obliged to ensure that the specified number of security guards were present throughout operating hours. Mr Cherfi brought a claim for indirect religious discrimination alleging that G4S's policy placed Muslims at a particular disadvantage but the Employment Tribunal held that the financial implications for G4S of being in potential breach of contract justified the requirement. Mr Cherfi relied on Cross v British Airways as authority that economic considerations could not justify a discriminatory policy whilst G4S relied on Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust as authority that they could. The Employment Appeal Tribunal followed Woodcock and, as an alternative finding, held that financial implications were sufficient to make the discriminatory policy reasonable and proportionate. COST CAN JUSTIFY DISCRIMINATION
NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES WHEN EMPLOYEE IN REMAND
15 June 2011 An employment appeal tribunal ruled that the non-payment of wages whilst an employee was remanded in custody pending a trial on criminal charges was not an unlawful deduction from wages.
CIPP Policy News Journal
09/10/2012, Page 36 of 234
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker