Timothy Norton & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKUT 48 (TCC)
MWL International Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
16 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 402 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Two companies argued their company cars were tax-exempt 'pool cars'. The tax court disagreed, saying the cars were used too much privately. Even though a past agreement seemed to support the companies, the court ruled that the government couldn't be stopped from collecting taxes legally owed and the old agreement was invalid. The court also couldn't consider fairness arguments because the law clearly stated the taxes were owed.
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.
Similar Cases
Laing O’Rourke Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC & Anor
[2023] UKUT 155 (TCC)
Three Shires Trailers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 79 (TC)
The Oaks (Gatley) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 594 (TC)
UBS AG, R (on the application of) v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKUT 242 (TCC)