Philip Leslie Jinks v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 431 (TC)
Jelly Vine Productions Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
19 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 562 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company challenged tax assessments, arguing they were made too early. The court refused to hear this argument separately, saying it's too closely tied to the main dispute about whether the company's director was an employee. The entire case will be heard together.
Key Facts
- •Jelly Vine Productions Ltd (Appellant) appealed HMRC decisions assessing income tax and NICs for Jeremy Vine (sole shareholder and director), claiming he should not be treated as an employee under intermediaries legislation.
- •HMRC issued decisions for tax years 2013/14-2015/16, based on sections 48-61 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 and Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000.
- •The Appellant applied for a preliminary issues hearing on the grounds that the decisions were premature and invalid.
- •The main dispute centered around whether HMRC had the necessary knowledge/belief to issue the decisions before the completion of their employment status enquiry.
Legal Principles
Application of Wrottesley factors for preliminary issues hearings.
Rt Hon Baron Wrottesley v HMRC [2015] UKUT 637 (TCC)
Overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly (Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 2).
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Power to issue determinations (Reg 80 Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003) and Notices (s8 Social Security Contributions Act 1999).
Reg 80 Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003; s8 Social Security Contributions Act 1999
Power to supersede inappropriate decisions (Regulation 6, Social Security Contributions (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999).
Regulation 6, Social Security Contributions (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999
Abuse of power considerations (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1).
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1
Outcomes
Application for a preliminary issues hearing refused.
The Tribunal found that determining the prematurity of the decisions was intertwined with the evidence of tax liability and could not be separated for a preliminary hearing. The potential time savings did not outweigh the potential delays and inefficiencies of a two-stage process. The court deemed the argument not strong enough to warrant a preliminary hearing.