K5K Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 12 July 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 217 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
K5K appealed HMRC PAYE and NIC decisions for 2014–2017 which treated named workers as employed persons under s 44 ITEPA and assessed K5K for PAYE/NIC; HMRC issued Regulation 80 determinations and NIC Notices totalling £260,991.21. The Tribunal found the notices valid despite not stating the charging provision on their face, concluded the template "Worker Contract" made the individuals (not their personal companies) the contracting parties, held s 44(1) conditions were satisfied and s 44(2) did not apply, and dismissed the appeal.
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: medium
The Tribunal held that Regulation 80 and SSC Regulations notices need not recite the specific statutory charging provision on their face to be valid; compliance with the statutory form and service requirements suffices. For s 44 ITEPA, the factual question is whether the individual personally provided the services; where a template contract names and is signed by the individual without contemporaneous evidence that a personal company was party, the individual is to be treated as the contracting party for the s 44 analysis.
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 it lacks jurisdiction to entertain free‑standing public law challenges to the validity of tax/NI decisions beyond the statutory appeal criteria and that such challenges may require judicial review. It also commented on practical difficulties caused by franchisor‑controlled, non‑contemporaneous template documents and that a misleading covering letter does not of itself invalidate a properly made statutory determination.
Warning
- The chunk contains extensive, messy documentary material and contested chronology; the state of exhibits and dating is noisy and made factual findings difficult. The provided notes show messy, incomplete and post‑period documentary material and contested chronology; the underlying exhibits and dating appear noisy and materially incomplete.