McKenna Demolition Limited Mr Richard McKenna v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 23 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 344 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether provision of successive company saloon cars and fuel to the managing director amounted to taxable car and fuel benefits and triggered a corresponding Class 1A NIC charge. The tribunal found Mr McKenna was the ordinary/main user, used the cars for voluntary private commuting (kept them overnight at home), was not “on call” in the statutory sense, and the saloons were neither vans nor pooled/emergency vehicles. Both the company’s appeal against Class 1A NIC determinations and penalties and Mr McKenna’s appeals against discovery assessments and penalties were dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where an employee is the principal/ordinary user of a saloon car which is kept overnight at the employee’s home and used regularly for home‑to‑work journeys, such use is consistent with private commuting and does not qualify the vehicle as a pooled car, van or emergency vehicle for the purposes of denying a car/fuel benefit charge; occasional business use or availability for call‑outs does not alter that character.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
Comments in the judgment indicate that decisions accepting genuine multi‑user pooled car arrangements may be persuasive but are highly fact‑dependent, and that reasons such as security or protecting the vehicle at home, by themselves, do not establish that overnight homekeeping converts private commuting into employment‑incidental use.
Warning
The chunk contains repeated and somewhat disordered text and statutory references; factual and legislative material is duplicated. The supplied notes contain some repeated and disordered text and statutory references; they may be incomplete.