In Bulley (HMRC) v Hemmer Investments Ltd (Ch D – 30 April) a company (H) employed a number of scaffolders. Some of these employees became entitled to tax rebates. H failed to pay the rebates and some of the employees complained to HMRC. HMRC began investigating H's records issued certificates under Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2682) reg 79 and took court proceedings to recover the amounts in question. The Ch D gave judgment for HMRC. David Richards J found that H had provided in its payroll records for rebates of income tax payable to employees had deducted those rebates from the PAYE payments which it made to the Revenue but had not in fact paid them to the employees. The certificates which HMRC had issued were valid. Furthermore no notice of the...
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 Bulley (HMRC) v Hemmer Investments Ltd (Ch D – 30 April) a company (H) employed a number of scaffolders. Some of these employees became entitled to tax rebates. H failed to pay the rebates and some of the employees complained to HMRC. HMRC began investigating H's records issued certificates under Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2682) reg 79 and took court proceedings to recover the amounts in question. The Ch D gave judgment for HMRC. David Richards J found that H had provided in its payroll records for rebates of income tax payable to employees had deducted those rebates from the PAYE payments which it made to the Revenue but had not in fact paid them to the employees. The certificates which HMRC had issued were valid. Furthermore no notice of the...
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:
2734558d-601b-48a3-8ae3-ae3513a00429.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=1fc4692d_1)
