Yum Yum Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 14 July 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 331 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Yum Yum Ltd provided a company-owned Jaguar to its sole director, kept overnight at his home and used for business; HMRC assessed Class 1A NICs for car and fuel. The tribunal found the car was likely available for private use, and that the s.167 ITEPA "pool car" conditions were not met because the car was not shown to be used by more than one employee and the employer did not "occupy" the director's home. The appeal was dismissed and the Class 1A NICs liability upheld.

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: low

The binding ratio is that a motor vehicle kept overnight at an employee’s residence and shown to be used only by that employee does not satisfy s.167(3)(a) ITEPA’s requirement of actual use by more than one employee; and that "occupation" of premises for s.167 should be assessed by reference to physical possession, control, power to exclude and a right to enjoyment (as in rating/Schedule B authorities), so absent evidence of employer occupation the s.167 exception fails.

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

The tribunal noted (obiter) that the statutory scale charges for car and fuel may be disproportionate to actual cost but that disproportionality is a matter for Parliament, and that practical reasons for keeping a car overnight at an employee’s home (e.g. parking constraints) do not affect the s.167(3)(d) focus on where the car is kept.