Search

BLOG

Supreme Court Rules HMRC Does Not Have To Consider The Effect On The Company’s Business When Deciding On De-Registration Of Gross Payment

Blog image

JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] UKSC 31[2018] All ER (D) 62 (Jun)

The Supreme Court has ruled that the HMRC does not have to consider the impact on a company’s business when deciding whether or not to cancel a company’s registration for gross payment under the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS).

What is the CIS?

The CIS was introduced in the 1970s in an effort to reduce what was seen as widespread tax evasion within the construction industry.  The scheme requires subcontractors to be subject to a flat-rate deduction of tax.  This ensures that over the course of 12 months, subcontractors will pay the correct amount of tax.  However, an organisation can apply to register for gross payment status if they can show an exemplary record of tax compliance.  This provides an advantage in terms of cash flow, as they can receive payment for their services without the deduction, in the same way as other businesses.  In addition, it can make them more attractive to employers, who do not have to cope with working out the deductions when paying invoices.

HMRC periodically reviews subcontractors who appear on the gross payment status register to check whether they remain compliant.  If they fall below the required standard, the tax department can remove them from the register.

The facts of the case of JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners 

The appellant is a company of water-well engineers. It had repeatedly failed to account for PAYE on time, due to its long-standing use of a payroll system that automatically resulted in paying PAYE at least a few days late.

HMRC began to raise objections to this in 2009, twice removing gross payment status but then restoring it after appeals. In 2011, HMRC removed gross payment status and this time refused the appellant’s appeal, giving rise to this litigation.

JP Whitter stated that if its gross payment registration was cancelled, its major customer would be lost, and it would be unable to tender for large commercial work.  As a result, it would lose over 60% of its turnover and would have to make 20 of its 25 employees redundant.

The issue for the court was whether HMRC was obliged to consider the impact on a business if gross payment status was lost.


The decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the Court of Appeal that HMRC was not required or permitted to consider the potential impact on a subcontractor of losing gross payment status when deciding whether or not to remove that status.  However, HMRC had discretion because “some element of flexibility may be desirable in any enforcement regime to allow for cases where the failure is limited and temporary (even if not within the prescribed classes) and poses no practical threat to the objectives of the scheme”.

As it was accepted that the status of being registered for gross payment was itself a bundle of rights that counted as a possession for the purpose of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court had to decide on whether HMRC acted proportionately.  The court held it was, with Lord Carnwath stating:

“Registration is a privilege conferred by the legislation, which has significant economic advantages, but it is subject to stringent conditions and the risk of cancellation. The impact on the company is no different in kind from that which is inherent in the legislation”.

What this case means for subcontractors

This case confirms that construction subcontractors who have been granted gross payment status need to be vigilant in their compliance with HMRC rules and policies.  Although the HMRC does have discretion when it comes to deregistering a business, this discretion cannot and should not be based on any negative impact deregistration would have on the organisation affected. 

Fisher Scoggins Waters are experts in construction, manufacturing, and engineering law, based in London.  If you would like more information on construction contract disputes, please phone us on 0207 993 6960.

Follow our company page on linkedin for future updates and our views on the latest developments

Please leave a comment

Enter the name you would like to appear on the comment.
(required)
Enter the email you would like to use to get updates. You email is not visible and can not be used by other users.
(required)
Enter you comment help.

 
  Post Comment

Book Launch - 27 November 2019

Will you be joining us?

HSE and Environment Agency prosecution: A new climate

27 November 2019 | Bloomsbury, 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP

Event Registration

First name
Surname
Email address
Any additional information
Post/Event URL
Post/Event Title
CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above in the box below.

Tag Cloud

‘fit for purpose’ obligations 2016 Adjudication adjudication lawyer Adjudication Notice Adjudication process appeal appointing an adjudicator Arbitration Artificial Intelligence Asbestos benefits of off-site construction bonfires book launch breach of contract Brexit Building Defects business interruption Business Interruption Insurance CDM CDM Regulations chambers and partners Charlotte Waters civil proceedings claim payments Claims client COMAH commercial contracts complex construction claims Compliance compulsory sprinklers in warehouses consequential loss construction Construction Construction & Engineering construction contract Construction contract dispute Construction contracts Construction dispute construction dispute lawyer construction dispute resolution construction dispute resolution solicitor construction dispute solicitors Construction Disputes Resolution Construction industry Construction Magazine contracts Contribution claim Corporate Manslaughter Corporate Responsibility costs criminal investigation criminal proceedings cut out fuse Defective Building Work Defective Premises Act developer developers disadvantages of off-site construction Disaster disaster claim Disasters Dispute dispute resolution Disputes DPA Dr Louise Smail Emergency response Emergency Response Solicitors enforcement notices Engineering Engineering dispute Environment Agency environment law Environmental Environmental Agency Environmental damage Environmental Law environmental waste EU EU Procurement Europe Evidence Expert evidence expert witness falls from height Fatal Accidents fee for intervention Fees For Intervention FFI FIDIC Contracts fine Fines Fire Fire Claim fire claims fire damage fire damage lawyers fire sprinkler systems fireworks flood flood claim flood damage food hygiene Fracking fracking claims Fraudulent claims FSW Gross Negligence Manslaughter Guide to Adjudication H&S fine increases; health and safety fines; Health & Safety health & safety breach health & safety sentences health & safety sentencing guidelines health & safety sentencing large corporations health and safety health and safety Health and Safety Executive heave Higher Fines Honey Rose v R How to appoint an adjudicator HSE Insolvency insolvent insurance Insurance Act 2015 insurance bill Insurance Broker insurance claim insurance cover Insurance Disclosure Insurance Disclosure insurance dispute insurance dispute solicitors Insurance Warranties ISO 45001 join us joint venture Judicial Review latest news Law Lawyer legal 500 legal advice privilege Legal Expense Insurance legal professional privilege legal retainers Liability Liquidated Damages Litigation litigation privilege local bodies magistrates’ courts Major Property Damage Manufacturing Martinisation material breach Mediation Michael Appleby Micheal appleby modern methods of construction (MMC) modular construction Mr. Gutaj Notice of adjudication panel firms party wall Performance Bond planning powers of an adjudicator pre-fabrication procurement procurement injunction procurement model Property Damage property danage Public Contract Public Contracts Public Contracts Regulations public procurement public procurement challenges public procurement relationship public sector Publicity Order PUWER recruitment regulation 11 Relief Resolution riot Riot Compensation Act 2016 Risk Risk Assessment safety in the workplace Sanctions Self-build sentence sentencing sentencing guidelines Serious Fraud Office SME Sneller Sony specialist risk and safety consultant Statute Barred Sub-Contractors subrogation subsidance subsidence TCC TCC Guidance team Technology and Construction Court The Adjudicator’s Decision and Costs The Enterprise Act The Lord Young Reforms The Powers Of An Adjudicator The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 The referral notice and response Training tree root UK Underwriters Warehouse insurance Warranties waste water damage WEEE What is Adjudication? what should an adjudication refal notice contain work equipment

Search The Site

Accreditations

 

The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms


Contact Us Now For Advice And Guidance

Enter your name
Enter your surname
Enter your Email
Ask us a Question?