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

Rangers case precedent still impacts tax cases today

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

4 August 2022

Key points:

  • The Hoey case is about a tax avoidance scheme involving loans paid out of an employee benefit trust (EBT)
  • The Court of Appeal found in favour of HMRC
  • HMRC utilised a little-known PAYE Regulation to pass the liability on to the employee

Justine Riccomini sets out the key issues arising from the decision in the Hoey case and wonders whether HMRC will utilise a little-known PAYE regulation to pass the liability on to employees more regularly in future.

A decision released by the Court of Appeal on Friday 13 May 2022 proved unlucky for those involved in disguised contractor loan schemes.

The important test case of Hoey and others v HMRC [2022] EWCCA Civ 656 examined the relationship between Self-Assessment and PAYE legislation, where the taxpayer, a UK resident, was engaged by an offshore umbrella company (OUC) to provide IT consultancy services to several “end user” clients (AXA Investment Managers Ltd, Aviva Investors and Threadneedle Investments) and was remunerated using a loan scheme derived from an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) which formed the greater part of his income from that source.

Rangers Football Club

The Rangers case decision from July 2017 led to the taxpayer, Mr Hoey, accepting that he had received employment earnings during the three years in question (2008-9, 2009-10 and 2010-11). Those earnings were therefore deemed liable to income tax.

Taxpayer protection

Although one would expect that if a UK based employee earns employment income, they would normally suffer PAYE and NICs deductions on that income at source, the difficulty here was that Mr Hoey’s employer, the OUC, was offshore, and was therefore not required under Section 689 ITEPA 2003 to make PAYE deductions. So HMRC were not able to hand a bill to the OUC for the underpaid liabilities accruing from the loan payments which had been made out of an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT).

The next expected step under the PAYE Regulations at Section 689 would be for the next entity in the chain (in this case, the “end user”) which is situated in the UK to bear the liability. Ordinarily, the employee would thus be protected from having to personally bear any liability in these circumstances because HMRC will usually penalise the employer for not deducting and paying over the PAYE and NICs liabilities, and the employee can claim a credit through the self-assessment regime as if they had paid them personally. Mr Hoey made a claim for this credit entitlement, arguing that in the absence of the OUC being liable for the PAYE and NICs, the end user should be paying them.

Hidden powers

An infrequently used power in the PAYE Regulations at Section 7A of Regulation 684 (The PAYE Regulations are within ITEPA 2003 at Part 11) gives HMRC the discretion not to impose a liability on the payer of the employment earnings where ‘an officer of Revenue and Customs is satisfied that it is unnecessary or not appropriate for the payer to do so’.

HMRC argued in this case that the UK-based end user should not in fact be liable for paying the tax liabilities because they had not made the payments directly to Mr Hoey – the OUC had funded the EBT with payments sent from the end user, and the EBT had then made the payments of the loans to the individual. In dismissing the decisions of the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal agreed with this stance.

HMRC also submitted a secondary argument which was that the provisions relating to the transfer of assets abroad should apply under Chapter 2 of Part 13, ITA 2007. This argument was however rejected by the Court of Appeal because the judiciary considered that HMRC’s primary argument that Regulation 684 should apply in this case was the correct way to go, and this meant that the transfer of assets abroad rules could not have the effect of creating a separate liability.

Due to the above, Mr Hoey was refused a credit through self-assessment because the end user was not required to bear any liability, and that meant the liability would now instead be passed on to Mr Hoey to bear personally.

Judicial Review?

Mr Hoey had requested a judicial review on both the Regulation 684 and the Transfer of Assets Abroad legislation.  His request failed on both counts because the Court of Appeal considered that both arguments presented by HMRC were brought using the correct legislation, and the tribunals had not erred in law.

Retrospection – opening the floodgates?

Not only did the judiciary consider that no credit entitlement could apply to Mr Hoey because of the application of Regulation 684, but the Court of Appeal then also overturned the consideration of the Upper Tribunal by agreeing with HMRC that the PAYE Regulations could and should have retrospective effect.

They confirmed there was no time limit associated with the power to absolve an employer of their obligation to deduct and pay over PAYE and NICs, unlike in other situations in which liabilities can be transferred from employer to employee (N.B. the power at Reg.684 can also be used protectively for prospective purposes as well).

This seems to be rather at odds with the fundamental principles of the PAYE regime and not a little concerning that there is no related appeal mechanism against Regulation 684 Section 7A in this context other than for the employee to seek judicial review in the Administrative Court.

One wonders whether this may be the way HMRC wishes to go on tax avoidance cases involving employers and employees in future.

Too good to be true - when complex arrangements are really just good-old employment income in disguise

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

5 April 2022

Avoiding the issue

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

9 December 2020

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: