In writing about the recent decision in Christianuyi Ltd and others v HMRC [2018] UKUT 10 (TCC) one is tempted to say ‘taxpayers lose hopeless case’ and leave it at that. The decision warrants a rather closer examination than that however. It is the first case to address the managed service company (MSC) legislation at ITEPA 2003 Part 2 Chapter 9. The careful analysis that the Upper Tribunal (UT) gives of the legislation and of the reasoning of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) (which it upholds in almost every respect) is well worth reading.
The basic rule is that where a ‘worker’ (as defined) provides his services through a ‘managed service company’ (as defined) any payment or benefit received by...
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 writing about the recent decision in Christianuyi Ltd and others v HMRC [2018] UKUT 10 (TCC) one is tempted to say ‘taxpayers lose hopeless case’ and leave it at that. The decision warrants a rather closer examination than that however. It is the first case to address the managed service company (MSC) legislation at ITEPA 2003 Part 2 Chapter 9. The careful analysis that the Upper Tribunal (UT) gives of the legislation and of the reasoning of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) (which it upholds in almost every respect) is well worth reading.
The basic rule is that where a ‘worker’ (as defined) provides his services through a ‘managed service company’ (as defined) any payment or benefit received by...
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: