In JAL Mason v HMRC (No 2) (UT – 16 July) an electrician (M) had been employed on drilling rigs in the North Sea from 1983 to 1998. His employers reduced his monthly salary by withholding a small ‘retainer’ which they then paid two weeks later. For NIC purposes his employers treated him as having two-weekly pay periods rather than four-weekly pay periods. They avoided paying NIC on the ‘retainer’ payments on the basis that these payments fell below the lower limit for NICs for the notional fortnightly period and paid less NIC than they would otherwise have done in respect of the balancing payments on the basis that much of the payment exceeded the upper limit for NICs for the notional fortnightly period.
Following M's retirement he discovered that the effect of this was that he received...
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 JAL Mason v HMRC (No 2) (UT – 16 July) an electrician (M) had been employed on drilling rigs in the North Sea from 1983 to 1998. His employers reduced his monthly salary by withholding a small ‘retainer’ which they then paid two weeks later. For NIC purposes his employers treated him as having two-weekly pay periods rather than four-weekly pay periods. They avoided paying NIC on the ‘retainer’ payments on the basis that these payments fell below the lower limit for NICs for the notional fortnightly period and paid less NIC than they would otherwise have done in respect of the balancing payments on the basis that much of the payment exceeded the upper limit for NICs for the notional fortnightly period.
Following M's retirement he discovered that the effect of this was that he received...
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:
