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. Business and governance
    5. Charities
    6. Coronavirus
    7. Corporate and financial reporting
    8. Cyber security
    9. Ethics
    10. Insolvency
    11. ICAS Research
    12. Pensions
    13. Practice
    14. Public sector
    15. Sustainability
    16. 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

Met Police case tests basic PAYE principles

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
Justine Riccomini By Justine Riccomini, Head of Tax (Employment and Devolved taxes)

30 September 2022

Main points

  • This case considers whether amounts paid in respect of insurance policy and legal ‘success’ fees were taxable as employment earnings.
  • The Court of Appeal decided they were not exempt from PAYE.
  • The case centred around the definition of the words “profit” and “from”.

Justine Riccomini sets out the reasoning behind the decision in a “back to basics” employment tax case involving Met Police officers which was heard recently at the Court of Appeal

The case of HMRC v Keith Murphy was heard in July 2022 and the decision handed down less than three weeks later, in August 2022. Lady Justice Andrews, who delivered the decision, wasted no time in coming to the nub of the issue facing the judiciary – in this case, the meaning of the words “from” and “profit” within ITEPA 2003 s.62 – the section of the act which defines what counts as earnings from employment.

Background

Mr Murphy was amongst a group of police officers working for the Metropolitan Police (“The Met”) who took legal action against The Met in 2014 via the High Court. That case concerned itself with arrears of overtime and other allowances to which they believed they were entitled by way of statutory debt under the Police Regulations 2003, whilst they were employed by The Met. To pay for the legal costs the claimants entered into a damages-based agreement and insurance policy, the former including a success fee should the courts find in favour of the claimants or an out of court settlement be reached with The Met.

In May 2016, a settlement was reached with The Met on the basis of no admission of liability. The settlement did not include funds ring-fenced for the success fee or insurance, but did include legal costs of the claimants. Indeed, Clause 8.1 of the settlement stated:  "Other than the Agreed Costs, the Parties shall each bear their own legal costs in relation to the Dispute and this agreement."

The Met agreed a form of making payment to the claimants under clause 3.3 of the settlement agreement, which included them being invoiced for the success fee by the solicitors and paying this sum and the insurance premium directly to the creditors. Both amounts would be deducted from the total sum payable to the claimants prior to payment.

Clearly, any payments made to the claimants in respect of arrears of pay and allowances were taxable under PAYE. However, The Met also applied PAYE to the costs too – in other words, applying PAYE to the whole amount paid directly to and also on behalf of each claimant. This approach contradicted the amount declared as taxable income by Mr Murphy on his tax return. He had treated the success fee and insurance premium as not taxable on him personally as they were not earnings and he had not received them directly. HMRC issued discovery assessments and Mr Murphy appealed.

Court decisions

The decision taken by the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) was that the whole amount should indeed be treated as taxable on Mr Murphy as earnings “from” an employment. The Upper Tribunal (UT) disagreed, but this decision was then overturned by the Court of Appeal – who considered the deliberations made by the Upper Tribunal and then decided they agreed with the FTT.

What was the Upper Tribunal’s view?

The UT concluded that something could only be regarded as "earnings" within s.62 of ITEPA if it fell within the expression "any other profit… obtained by the employee" in s.62(2)(b) of ITEPA.

Two words requiring clarification were noted by the UT – and this led them to conclude that the FTT had erred by only considering the word “from”:

i)          “Whether the alleged profit was derived from the employment as required by the definition of general earnings in s.9 (2) of ITEPA (the "from" issue); and

ii)         What is the meaning of "profit" in s.62(2)(b); in particular, whether it refers to 'gross' profit or 'net' profit and, if the latter, what items can be taken into account in computing the net profit for these purposes? (the "profit" issue).”

The UT considered that the insurance premium and conditional success fees were costs/potential costs which had to be incurred to enable the appeal process to happen at all, and that they did not represent a profit, nor earnings under s.62 ITEPA 2003. The UT cited the case of Eagles (Inspector of Taxes) v Levy [1934] 19 TC 23, opining that it supported the view that if a taxpayer has an outlay to achieve a legitimate aim then it should not count as income from the employment.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal disagreed with this viewpoint and upheld HMRC’s appeal on the grounds that the term “profit” did not confer an automatic assumption of net profit and the normal rules for expenses must be observed – namely that the expenses in question did not qualify for a tax deduction because they had not been incurred ‘wholly, exclusively and necessarily’ in the performance of the officers’ employment duties.

In terms of the “from” question, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the correct way to determine whether a payment meets the definition is to refer to Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) v Mayes [1960] AC 376, which concludes that an amount has to not only be derived from the employment, but also to be a reward for services at the same time. The Court of Appeal thus concluded at para 59 of the judgement that: “The Met was right to deduct PAYE from the whole of Mr Murphy's share of the Principal Settlement Sum”.

Conclusion

The case reflects the fact that if one strips back the layers of the onion, the facts should point one to the basic principles of the law – and in this case, that is exactly what happened.

If you wish to contribute to the debate…why not join an ICAS tax committee and bring your expertise straight to the Tax team?

HMRC produces Q&A style CJRS common errors guidance sheet

By Justine Riccomini, Head of Tax (Employment and Devolved taxes)

26 August 2022

Rangers case precedent still impacts tax cases today

By Justine Riccomini, Head of Tax (Employment and Devolved taxes)

4 August 2022

2023-03-MarksElectrical 2023-03-MarksElectrical
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: