Key Facts
- •Maywal Ltd and MWL International Ltd appealed HMRC's decisions imposing Class 1A National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for car benefits.
- •The appeal hinged on whether company cars were 'pool cars' under ITEPA s 167, and whether HMRC was estopped from retrospective assessment based on a 1993 agreement.
- •A 1993 meeting between Mr. Walpole and an HM Inspector of Taxes established criteria for pool car treatment.
- •The Tribunal found that the cars did not meet the 'pool car' criteria due to significant private use.
- •The Tribunal considered estoppel by convention (Tinkler v HMRC) but found it inapplicable due to HMRC's inability to be estopped from enforcing a statute and the 1993 agreement being ultra vires.
Legal Principles
Estoppel by convention requires a common assumption of facts or law, expressly shared, relied upon, and resulting in detriment.
Tinkler v HMRC [2021] UKSC 39
HMRC cannot be estopped from enforcing statutory provisions.
Keen v Holland [1984] 1 All ER 75; Maritime Electric v General Dairies [1937] AC 610
A void agreement cannot found an estoppel.
Case law discussed in sections 136-159
The First-tier Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction and its jurisdiction to determine public law questions depends on statutory provisions.
Beadle v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 562; Caerdav v HMRC [2023] UKUT 000179 (TCC)
A Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider legitimate expectation where HMRC has no discretion in assessing liability.
Caerdav v HMRC [2023] UKUT 000179 (TCC)
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The cars were not 'pool cars' under ITEPA s 167; estoppel did not apply due to the statutory nature of the NIC liability and the 1993 agreement being ultra vires; the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider legitimate expectation.