Stay updated with breaking news from Customs comrs. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
The recent decision in Haworth v HMRC provides some useful judicial commentary on the correct interpretation of the "place of effective management"… ....
FOI request reveals HMRC owes millions after landmark 'round the world' case internationalinvestment.net - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from internationalinvestment.net Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
HMRC to repay £45m in 'follower notice' penalties? | International Adviser international-adviser.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from international-adviser.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Judicial review – Income support – Claimants alleging scheme, by which payments made to self-employed persons whose businesses adversely affected by Coronavirus emergency, unlawfully discriminating against self-employed women who had taken maternity leave or leave relating to pregnancy in three preceding tax years In April 2020, HM Treasury (the defendant) introduced the self-employment income support scheme (the Scheme), by way of a direction under ss 71 and 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA 2020). Under the Scheme, payments were made to persons who carried on a business that had been adversely affected by the Coronavirus emergency. With some exceptions, payments under the Scheme were to be based on average trading profits (ATP) of the individual’s business over the preceding three full tax years (i.e. 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19). ....
On the facts found in the present case, the employment tribunal (the ET) had been entitled to find that the respondent drivers were ‘workers’ who worked for Uber London under ‘worker’s contracts’, within the meaning of the statutory definition (s 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996). The Supreme Court (the court), in dismissing Uber’s appeal, held that that had been the only conclusion which the ET could reasonably have reached and, accordingly, it affirmed the conclusion of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and that of the majority of the Court of Appeal, that the ET had been entitled to decide both questions in the respondents’ favour. Further, the court held that the ET had note erred in finding that: (i) periods during which its three conditions were met constituted ‘working time’ for the purpose of the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833; (ii) drivers’ working hours should be classified as ‘unmeasured work’, and (iii) the respondents’ work ....