Prisma Recruitment Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 March 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 291 (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
Prisma supplied 13 workers to BGM who deployed them on RBS projects; HMRC determined PAYE/NIC liability and assessed VAT surcharges. The Tribunal held HMRC had made an appealable Regulation 80 determination, Prisma made a timely Schedule 1AB TMA repayment claim and was entitled to repayment, and the contractual/factual client for s44 ITEPA was BGM (not RBS) so the workers provided excluded services meaning Prisma had no PAYE/Class 1 NICs obligation. Prisma's appeal against VAT default surcharges failed because insufficiency of funds was not a reasonable excuse.
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
A Regulation 80 determination can be made and be appealable where HMRC has decided the amount of unpaid PAYE and has communicated that decision to the employer, even if the notice does not expressly cite Regulation 80. Under Schedule 1AB TMA paras 4(3)–(4), a person who has paid income tax believing themselves accountable under the relevant enactment but who was not so accountable can claim repayment. For s44/s47 ITEPA purposes the contractual (and factual) client under the agency contract is decisive; where services are wholly performed at premises not controlled or managed by that client they may qualify as "excluded services".
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 that HMRC guidance (e.g. CWG2) does not determine statutory claim-form requirements under Schedule 1AB TMA, and used practical analogies (e.g. waiter/restaurant) to illustrate the distinction between contractual client and ultimate beneficiary of work.