In GR Solutions Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 July) a company director (H) purchased a BMW motor car in April 2004. In December 2004 he sold a 90% share in the car to the company (G). G paid for fuel but failed to account for Class 1A national insurance contributions. HMRC issued a ruling that G was required to pay Class 1A Contributions in respect of the car and the fuel. The First-Tier Tribunal dismissed G’s appeal holding that the fact that H owned 10% of the car did not avoid the liability to national insurance contributions. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision applying the principles laid down by Pumfrey J in Christensen v Vasili [2004] STC 935.
In GR Solutions Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 July) a company director (H) purchased a BMW motor car in April 2004. In December 2004 he sold a 90% share in the car to the company (G). G paid for fuel but failed to account for Class 1A national insurance contributions. HMRC issued a ruling that G was required to pay Class 1A Contributions in respect of the car and the fuel. The First-Tier Tribunal dismissed G’s appeal holding that the fact that H owned 10% of the car did not avoid the liability to national insurance contributions. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision applying the principles laid down by Pumfrey J in Christensen v Vasili [2004] STC 935.
