ICAS ICAS logo

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Charities
    5. Coronavirus
    6. Corporate and financial reporting
    7. Business and governance
    8. Ethics
    9. Insolvency
    10. ICAS Research
    11. Pensions
    12. Practice
    13. Public sector
    14. Sustainability
    15. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

Iceland faced with £21m NMW bill

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
Justine Ricommini By Justine Riccomini, Head of Taxation (Scottish Taxes, Employment and ICAS Tax Community)

26 February 2019

Main Points:

  • National Minimum Wage enforcement is a major concern.

  • The legislation and guidance is complicated.

  • NMW legislation appears to clash with employment tax legislation in places.

The recent Iceland case has done nothing to dispel fears about National Minimum Wage inspections and the havoc they can wreak.

But was NMW really created to catch out otherwise well-meaning employers on a technicality, or to stop exploitative employers? Justine Riccomini explains.

Christmas savings club costs Iceland £21m

The frozen food giant Iceland is facing a £21m back wages bill levied by HM Revenue & Customs due to its operation of something it had considered it was doing to help its employees – operating a Christmas savings club.

Since its inception 20 years ago it appears that National Minimum Wage (NMW) failings, together with the increased levels of stiff sanctions and so-called “naming and shaming” process which accompanies them, are fast becoming the most worrisome employment-related issue employers face today.

Iceland argues it’s helping employees save

The £21m (yes, you are reading that right - it’s around £3.5m per annum for six years) bill sent to Iceland by HMRC, which administers and collects underpayments of PAYE and NICs on NMW breaches as well as enforcing retrospective payments of NMW to employees, relates to two issues in the main.

These are based around:

  • a voluntary Christmas savings club whereby Iceland deducts amounts from net pay for those wishing to participate, and which the employees can draw down at any time; and
  • advising retail staff to wear “sensible shoes” in the workplace (presumably to comply with health and safety or at the very least, prevent accidents).

The sheer size of the bill has led to the Treasury Select Committee questioning HMRC about its general approach to NMW issues, which Iceland’s CEO Sir Malcolm Walker has described as “madness”.

The Committee also wishes to understand whether the Iceland employees are really being exploited, and the employer is really in breach of NMW regulations, when it appears to be fairly clear cut that staff have participated in the scheme voluntarily and can withdraw their money at any time.

Iceland appears to have acted as a third-party savings club by placing the funds saved by the employees into a separate account which is overseen by an independent trustee. If the intention is to help employees save and they are not technically being paid less, what’s the problem?

HMRC argues that once the sums of money for the scheme are deducted from the employee’s pay, what is left is technically below the minimum wage, despite that fact the money eventually comes back to the employee. I understand PAYE/NICs, penalties and interest are yet to be considered in this case.

Purchase of non-branded clothing is illegal deduction for employer but tax deduction for employee is denied

Last year, Wagamama experienced a similar fate to Iceland by asking its waiting staff to wear black jeans or skirts to work (they wear an employer-provided top with a permanent logo affixed).

HMRC concluded that the wearing of clothing fitting this specific description by the employees (they may have purchased new, or simply worn items they already owned) meant that they were supplementing the employer ‘uniform’ by purchasing the bottom half themselves – and this amounted to the equivalent of a deduction from pay.

The employees could make a personal choice, pay different amounts for the clothing depending on each individual’s preference and affordability, and could wear the jeans or skirt elsewhere. The HMRC stance appears to go against the legislation at s.201 ITEPA 2003, which defines the provision of a uniform and the valuation of clothing provided as a benefit in kind which does not qualify for tax relief under s.336 ITEPA 2003.

The HMRC interpretation of what constitutes a uniform is set out at EIM 32475 with an example at EIM32476 which clearly states that no s.336 deduction is allowed for non-permanently branded clothing which the employee has to buy.

If that is the case, HMRC want the toffee and the ha’penny by treating the purchase of non-branded clothing as an illegal deduction from salary under NMW regulations because it is being treated as part of the uniform, and yet denying the employee a tax deduction at the same time, because it is not a uniform.

Iceland billed for employee’s shoes

Back to Iceland. According to the Times newspaper, HMRC has extrapolated a bill based on all retail staff of two pairs of flat shoes a year over the last six years. This is because HMRC believes Iceland’s policy of requesting that staff wear “sensible” shoes in its retail stores is a breach of NMW regulations.  Does having a dress code in any business now attract unwanted NMW attention?

Who is making decisions that might affect NMW?

I hear many stories like this (albeit mostly on a smaller scale than the Iceland and Wagamama ones) from ICAS members and other employment tax experts around the country.

ICAS members would do well to ensure they are having some fairly in-depth conversations about NMW with clients, regardless of whether or not they provide that client with a payroll service.

The HMRC publication Employer Bulletin (page 9) outlines the ten main reasons why employers fail NMW inspections, together with further guidance.

A review of the payroll parameters in itself is not going far enough, because the payroll processors do not make the decision about whether something classifies as a deduction from pay – they merely carry out what they have been asked to do, insert the figures into the payroll software, and check to make sure they are correct.

What is probably required is a meeting between finance and HR to understand who is making decisions which might affect NMW, but also to establish whether the employer has created policies in relation to such items as clothing preferences, and ensuring that all decision-makers in the process have read the BEIS guide on how to calculate the NMW.

Ultimately, HMRC enforcement officers, tax and employment tribunals and the courts are the ones deciding whether NMW regulations have been breached.

NMW causes problems for care sector

NMW has caused problems in many sectors.

The Supreme Court is now considering whether it will hear the appeal lodged by Unison last August in the Mencap case that its care workers were not entitled to NMW when on a “sleep in” shift.

The Appeal Court judgement boiled down to whether the individual is asleep (available for work) or awake (actually working) – even though the employee is not asleep in their own home, but that of the care recipient, and has, therefore, had to leave home and travel to the place of work so as to be on the premises.

The care sector has potentially been saved £400m in back pay if the Supreme Court agrees with this judgement.

NMW penalties and reputational damage

Just to emphasise the gravity of all this, let’s not forget that employers can be fined up to 200% of NMW related arrears for breaching NMW regulations and criminal sanctions also exist.

And let’s not forget that any back pay will be liable to income tax and NICs, and possibly also interest and penalties for failing to declare and pay over the amounts when they were technically originally payable to the employees.

Consultation on NMW deadline looms

In December 2018, the government published a consultation which concerns the National Minimum Wage rules regarding salaried workers and the operation of salary sacrifice schemes, with a deadline of 1 March 2019.

HMRC takes hard line on NMW

Clearly, HMRC is taking an increasingly hard line on NMW– this is borne out by the number of investigations opened by HMRC, which according to law firm Pinsent Masons, who submitted a freedom of information request, rose to 3,975 in 2017/18, up by 43% on the previous year.

Unfortunately, HMRC seems determined to pursue unintended actions with the same approach as they would intentional exploitation. The BEIS enforcement policy underpins this. The regulations are complex and can result in expensive settlements, along with tarnished employer and commercial brands.

A reminder of those rates for 2019/20

As is the case every year, the National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage rates will increase on 1st  April 2019. The NLW rate for workers aged 25 and over will increase from £7.83 per hour to £8.21 per hour.

For those under 18 the rate will increase from £4.20 to £4.35. The rate for 18-20 year-olds will rise from £5.90 to £6.15 and the new NMW rate for people aged 21-24 will go up from £7.38 to £7.70.

TUPE Transfers and the National Minimum Wage

By Justine Riccomini, Head of Taxation (Scottish Taxes, Employment and ICAS Tax Community)

26 September 2018

2022-01-xero 2022-01-xero
ICAS logo

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

ICAS logo

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: