In HMRC v Cheshire Employer & Skills Development Ltd (aka HMRC v Total People Ltd) (Upper Tribunal – 16 August) a company provided the services of apprentices and trainees to employers and supervised their training.
It employed about 160 training advisers who had to visit the trainees at their places of work.
It paid these advisers a mileage allowance plus an annual payment which was described as a ‘lump sum’ but was actually paid in 12 monthly instalments.
Initially it accounted for national insurance contributions on these payments.
Subsequently it submitted a repayment claim on the basis that the effect of Social Security (Contributions) Regulations SI 2001/1004 reg 22A was that it had not been required to pay national insurance contributions on these payments.
HMRC...
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:
In HMRC v Cheshire Employer & Skills Development Ltd (aka HMRC v Total People Ltd) (Upper Tribunal – 16 August) a company provided the services of apprentices and trainees to employers and supervised their training.
It employed about 160 training advisers who had to visit the trainees at their places of work.
It paid these advisers a mileage allowance plus an annual payment which was described as a ‘lump sum’ but was actually paid in 12 monthly instalments.
Initially it accounted for national insurance contributions on these payments.
Subsequently it submitted a repayment claim on the basis that the effect of Social Security (Contributions) Regulations SI 2001/1004 reg 22A was that it had not been required to pay national insurance contributions on these payments.
HMRC...
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:
