Baye Oumar Niasse v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 179 (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 agent fees paid on behalf of professional footballer Mr Niasse were deductible under s.336 ITEPA or allowable under s.352 ITEPA as payments calculated by reference to earnings, and whether HMRC validly issued notices to file and penalties. The Tribunal held the agent fees were collateral/preparatory to securing or renegotiating employment and not deductible under s.336, that Mr Niasse did not fall within the narrower statutory definition of “entertainer” in s.352 nor showed the fees were a percentage of earnings, and that HMRC had proved TMA notices were issued and penalties were properly upheld. The appeals 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
Payments to secure or negotiate employment (such as agent fees to obtain or renegotiate a footballer’s contract) are typically preparatory or collateral and not deductible under s.336(1) ITEPA unless they are imposed by obligations intrinsic to the duties of the employment; the statutory definition of “entertainer” in s.352(4) does not encompass professional footballers for the purpose of allowing deduction of fees calculated by reference to earnings; and HMRC’s contemporaneous internal records together with corroborating provider/print evidence can satisfy the evidential burden to prove a TMA notice was issued.
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 commented that opinion evidence on legal issues and factual assertions from witnesses who were not the most direct sources (for example relying on an accountant’s evidence rather than the taxpayer or industry witnesses) carries limited weight, and noted that tax and employment-agency legislation operate independently so perceived policy symmetry between them is not determinative of the scope of s.352.