In David Crossman v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 4 (4 January 2016) the FTT found that some payments assessed by HMRC under the CIS scheme were not within its scope.
Mr Crossman was appealing against tax and penalty assessments raised under the CIS scheme. He had been in business on his own account as a bathroom fitter. Between 2010 and 2013 he had paid other people for construction work they had done on sites where he was working.
The FTT found that it was unlikely that a contract with reciprocal obligations existed between Mr Crossman and all the paid parties. In certain cases Mr Crossman received the money from his client as trustee or agent not as a person obliged to render services or procure the rendering of services. The paid party was under a duty to the client to perform 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 David Crossman v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 4 (4 January 2016) the FTT found that some payments assessed by HMRC under the CIS scheme were not within its scope.
Mr Crossman was appealing against tax and penalty assessments raised under the CIS scheme. He had been in business on his own account as a bathroom fitter. Between 2010 and 2013 he had paid other people for construction work they had done on sites where he was working.
The FTT found that it was unlikely that a contract with reciprocal obligations existed between Mr Crossman and all the paid parties. In certain cases Mr Crossman received the money from his client as trustee or agent not as a person obliged to render services or procure the rendering of services. The paid party was under a duty to the client to perform 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:
