cases. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations and a judgement will be given at a later date. Follow this link to read the full judgement
TRIBUNAL CRITICISES HMRC FOR DELAY IN ISSUING PENALTIES
3 August 2011 In this case (TC01286: Hok Ltd) HMRC issued penalties for late forms P35 (Payroll end of year forms) several months late, which generated more penalties than were necessary. Dains reports: The case concerned an appeal against a penalty of £400 for late filing of the 2009/10 P35. The penalty was calculated at £100 per month for four months. In October 2010 a further penalty of £100 was issued, given that the filing had taken place on the 15 October 2010 once the company had been alerted to its default. The company argued that, if HMRC had notified it of its default, it would have been remedied it a far earlier time, thus avoiding ongoing penalties. The Tribunal stated that “HMRC has neither acted fairly nor in good conscience, in the manner described above, we do not consider that any penalty is recoverable over and above the £100 penalty for the first month unless HMRC proves (the onus being upon it) that even if such a penalty notice, which would have acted as a reminder, had been issued, the default would nonetheless have continued. It has proved no such thing.” Read the full story
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
3 August 2011 The case is concerned with whether an individual, who is expressly described as a self-
employed contractor in his contract, is really a 'worker'. Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
If it looks like an employee and quacks like an employee, it's probably not a self-employed subcontractor. So say the Supreme Court in the long awaited decision of Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher . The case is concerned with whether an individual, who is expressly described as a self- employed contractor in his contract, is really a 'worker' (and thus entitled to certain rights including minimum wage and paid holiday) due to the true nature of the relationship between the parties. In fact, in this case, the Supreme Court also upheld a finding that they were 'employees', but the claims for minimum wage and holiday only required they prove they were 'workers'. Twenty car valeters signed contracts describing themselves as self-employed subcontractors. They paid their own tax and had to purchase their own insurance, uniforms and materials (the latter two of which they could do from Autoclenz). Their contracts stated they were under no obligation to attend work, although the tribunal found as a fact - in practice - they were expected to attend work and provide services personally. The tribunal also found that they went into the contracts with their eyes open about being self-employed. So what trumped? The written contract, or the reality?
CIPP Policy News Journal
09/10/2012, Page 43 of 234
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker