In Harikrishna S Patel v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1101 (16 December 2014) the FTT found that no employer/employee relationship existed between a husband and a wife working in partnership.
Mr Patel and his wife had run a retail newsagent and a sub-post office in partnership with Mr Patel being remunerated by the Post Office for his work as sub-postmaster. Mrs Patel was considered by the Post Office to be Mr Patel’s employee as there could not be two sub-postmasters.
The sub-post office side of the business was closed in June 2004 and the Post Office made a payment of over £75 000 to compensate Mr Patel for his loss of office. The payment was made to the joint business account of Mr and Mrs Patel. The FTT had to decide whether Mrs Patel had received any payment for loss of employment. It found that...
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 Harikrishna S Patel v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1101 (16 December 2014) the FTT found that no employer/employee relationship existed between a husband and a wife working in partnership.
Mr Patel and his wife had run a retail newsagent and a sub-post office in partnership with Mr Patel being remunerated by the Post Office for his work as sub-postmaster. Mrs Patel was considered by the Post Office to be Mr Patel’s employee as there could not be two sub-postmasters.
The sub-post office side of the business was closed in June 2004 and the Post Office made a payment of over £75 000 to compensate Mr Patel for his loss of office. The payment was made to the joint business account of Mr and Mrs Patel. The FTT had to decide whether Mrs Patel had received any payment for loss of employment. It found that...
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:
