Bilfinger Salamis UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 August 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 736 (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 case concerned whether paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to SSR78 (the "host employer" provision) made Bilfinger Salamis UK Ltd the secondary Class 1 NICs contributor for a core team seconded to a Bilfinger Guernsey SPV between 1 Jan 2009 and 1 Apr 2014. The Tribunal found that, viewed realistically, the core team's obligation of personal service was placed at Bilfinger UK's disposal and was actually rendered for Bilfinger UK's business, so paragraph 9 applied. The appeal was dismissed and Bilfinger UK was held liable as the host employer for the material period.
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
The binding ratio is that paragraph 9 applies to secondment-like arrangements where an employee's obligation of "personal service" is placed at the disposal of a Great Britain entity and actually rendered for that entity's business; "personal service" means the obligation to perform personally, "made available" is satisfied by placing that obligation at the host's disposal (including obedience to the host's reasonable directions), and the definite article "the" requires that, viewed realistically, the entirety of the employee's personal service be so placed and rendered.
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 observed (obiter) that paragraph 9 is directed at secondment-type arrangements rather than ordinary subcontracting and is not primarily an anti-avoidance provision; it also commented that later statutory amendments and HMRC guidance do not determine the earlier statutory meaning.