Temporary workers, salary sacrifice and travel expenses (Upper Tribunal)

Practical Law UK Legal Update Case Report 0-564-8145 (Approx. 12 pages)

Temporary workers, salary sacrifice and travel expenses (Upper Tribunal)

Background

Tax relief for travel expenses

Expenses incurred by an employee and reimbursed by the employer may be treated as earnings for tax purposes (sections 70 and 72, Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003)). However, if an employee is obliged to undertake a business journey as part of the duties of their employment, and the employer reimburses the cost of the journey, the employee is entitled to deduct the expense from earnings (section 338, ITEPA 2003). Travel between home and a permanent workplace is not a business journey but is ordinary commuting. Accordingly, the reimbursement of the cost of ordinary commuting is taxable with no deduction. However, travel between home and a temporary workplace is a business journey. A temporary workplace is one at which the employee works for less than 24 months. For further discussion, see Practice note, Taxation of employees: benefits and expenses: Tax deductible and tax exempt expenses and dispensations and Travelling expenses.

Dispensations

If the rates of the travel and subsistence payments are agreed with HMRC (or standard scale rates are applied) and certain other conditions are met, HMRC will issue a dispensation. The effect is that the reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses can be made free of tax and NICs (assuming the amount reimbursed does not exceed the agreed rates). In addition, employees are not required to keep detailed expense claims (but are required to keep sufficient records to prove entitlement to a payment) and neither the employer nor employee is required to report the reimbursement of expenses to HMRC. (Accordingly, if expenses are paid free of tax and NICs, the employee is not entitled to seek a tax deduction for that expense.)

Dispensations are only available for expenses and benefits listed in section 216(4) of ITEPA 2003. Accordingly, a dispensation is not available for "earnings" taxable under section 62 of ITEPA 2003.

For a discussion of scale rate payments, see Expense allowances and scale rate payments: a briefing note for employers and for a quick guide to dispensations, see PAYE dispensations: a quick guide.

Overarching contracts

An employee who works under an "overarching employment contract" for an employment agency and who works for a number of different clients each for less than 24 months may qualify for tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses because each workplace is temporary.

An overarching employment contract is an employment contract between the employment agency and the employee that links a series of separate engagements into a single ongoing employment. Consequently, the employment agency is able to treat each engagement as a temporary place of work (rather than a permanent place of work) and, under the temporary workplace rules, pay travel expenses to workers free of income tax and NICs (assuming the agency holds an effective dispensation).

Salary sacrifice

A salary sacrifice arrangement involves an employee giving up part of their entitlement to salary, which is subject to income tax and NICs, in exchange for a new or enhanced non-cash benefit, which benefits from a full or partial exemption from tax and/or NICs. To be effective, there must be a variation in the employee's contractual entitlement to the salary. Agreement to apply part of the salary to acquire a benefit is not sufficient (Heaton v Bell 46 TC 211). For a full discussion of salary sacrifice arrangements, see Practice note, Salary sacrifice arrangements.

Although the use of overarching contracts allows employees to obtain income tax relief for travel expenses, it seems that in most cases the travel expenses are not paid on top of the employee's salary. Instead, travel expenses are paid as part of a salary sacrifice arrangement. Under this arrangement, a portion of the employee's salary is paid, not as salary, but as travel expenses. If the salary sacrifice is effective, it reduces the employee's taxable (and NICable) salary. Most of the benefit of this arrangement therefore falls on the employer, whose NICs liability reduces. For this reason, employers may share the benefit of the employer's NICs saving with the employee.

Government's response to overarching contracts

While the government has expressed concern about the exploitation of the temporary workplace rules and, in particular, the use of overarching employment contracts to change what would have been a series of permanent workplaces (for which no tax relief is due) into temporary workplaces (for which relief is due), it has yet to introduce legislative change. HMRC's current guidance on overarching contracts is that each contract will be assessed on its facts (see HMRC: ESM2035 - Overarching Contracts of Employment. If the employer guarantees a minimum of 336 hours work in a 12-month period, this is likely to be sufficient to illustrate an overarching contract (assuming the other contractual conditions are consistent with an overarching employment contract).

Legitimate expectation

Legitimate expectation is shorthand for the public law principles that will, in some circumstances, place limitations on a public authority's ability to act inconsistently with a person's expectation as to how the authority would exercise its powers in a particular situation or case, where the expectation is reasonably based on a representation by, or consistent past practice of, the authority. Legitimate expectation can sometimes be relied on by a taxpayer to protect his expectation to a particular form of tax treatment, even if the result would afford that taxpayer more favourable tax treatment than that to which he is entitled from a correct application of the relevant tax legislation.

It has previously been widely assumed that the Administrative Court was the only forum in which a taxpayer could advance a legitimate expectation claim (see Customs and Excise Commissioners v National Westminster Bank plc [2003] EWHC 1822 (Ch). The correctness of that assumption has, however, been questioned by a number of decisions of the First-tier Tribunal, including Noor v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 349 (TC) (see Legal update, Tribunal confirms jurisdiction to determine legitimate expectation issue in VAT appeal), which relies on obiter dicta of Sales J in Oxfam v HMRC [2009] EWHC 3078 (Ch) (see Legal update, High Court confirms HMRC not bound by apportionment agreement), to hold that the tribunal could consider at least some public law arguments, including legitimate expectation, when those arguments went to the validity of an assessment or other decision that was under appeal before it. However, the Upper Tribunal has since reversed the First-tier ribunal's decision in Noor, ruling that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine legitimate expectation issues in VAT appeals (see Legal update, First-tier Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine legitimate expectation issue in VAT appeal (Upper Tribunal)).

In considering claims by taxpayers to have a legitimate expectation to a particular form of treatment, the courts have repeatedly taken as their starting point the principles in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agencies Ltd [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1545. Generally, a taxpayer is entitled to rely on a ruling (or other statement or assurance) given to him by HMRC about a matter affecting his tax liability, provided that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

The taxpayer, when seeking the ruling, puts all of his cards face upwards on the table by giving HMRC full details of the specific transaction, and making plain that a fully considered ruling is being sought.
HMRC's ruling is clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification.

For further detail, see Practice note, Taxation and protection for legitimate expectations.

Facts and First-tier Tribunal's decision

The appellant (Reed) is an employment business that supplies workers to end-clients.

Historically, Reed engaged workers on a self-employed basis. However, in 1995 and subject to certain exceptions, Reed engaged workers as employees so that employees could participate in Reed's profit related pay scheme, a tax-efficient scheme, the legislative provisions for which were repealed in 1998. Workers were engaged under contracts that contained a provision that the employment would come to an end at the same time as the worker's current assignment.

In 1998, coinciding with the repeal of the profit related pay scheme, legislation was introduced that gave tax relief to employees for expenses incurred for travelling to a temporary workplace. Reed sought to take advantage of this new tax relief. It sought and obtained from HMRC a dispensation that permitted Reed to reimburse travel and subsistence expenses free of tax and NICs to employees that had no permanent place of work and who were required to perform their services at various locations for a limited duration (of less than 24 months). However, rather than reimburse travel and subsistence expenses as an addition to salary, Reed devised a scheme, which it subsequently amended, the effect of which was to pass most of the benefit to Reed.

The Reed Travel Allowance scheme

The calculation made under the Reed Travel Allowance scheme (RTA) operated as follows:

The employee's gross (usually weekly) salary was calculated by multiplying the employee's hourly rate by the number of hours worked.
An amount reflecting the travel allowance was deducted. (This amount was calculated by reference to the scale rates agreed with HMRC at the relevant time and the entries in the employee's timesheets.)
A further deduction was made, referred to as the "Exp Adj" figure, which represented the tax and NICs on the above amount. The purpose of this adjustment was to pass the benefit to Reed (in other words, the Exp Adj figure ensured that the employee received the same amount irrespective of his participation in the scheme). (There are contradictory statements in the First-tier Tribunal's judgment about whether the Exp Adj figure was a deduction from gross or net pay. It referred to "Exp Adj" as being an adjustment to "taxable pay" (paragraph 110), "net pay" (paragraph 113) and "gross pay" (paragraph 116). Reed contend that the Exp Adj figure was from gross pay.)
Tax and NICs were calculated on the net amount giving a net pay figure.
The travel allowance was then added back giving a total pay figure.

The result was that the entire tax saving fell to Reed because Reed paid less employer's NICs as the employee's gross (taxable) income reduced.

So that the employee derived some benefit from the scheme, the employer paid a "travel and subsistence allowance", initially set at £1 per day but which increased by 2001 to £1.50 per day (if the employee worked more than five hours a day). The travel and subsistence allowance was subject to tax and NICs. Accordingly, the benefit to the employee of the scheme was this daily travel and subsistence allowance (after tax and NICs).

The scale rates agreed with HMRC in the first dispensation were: £5.00 per day for employees using public transport in central London and £1.75 per day elsewhere, plus a daily subsistence allowance of £3.15 in London and £2.45 elsewhere.

The RTA scheme was explained to the employees through the Reed staff handbook and orally by Reed branch managers. The staff handbook did not expressly refer to a salary sacrifice. The RTA scheme was an "opt out" scheme, which required no action on the part of the employee unless the employee wished to opt out. It was possible to opt out at any time. Employees were required to complete daily timesheets to record their daily mileage or to indicate that public transport to work was used.

As a result of the decrease in the employee's gross earnings, the employee paid less tax and NICs. The decrease also reduced the employee's entitlement to contributory benefits and to a tax rebate. Although a copy of a "draft guide" made some mention of loss of entitlement, it was not clear that the draft guide was ever made available to employees.

Employees were not aware of the tax free rates that HMRC had agreed with Reed.

The Reed Travel Benefit scheme

This RTA scheme was replaced by the Reed Travel Benefit (RTB) scheme in 2002. The RTB scheme was less complicated and the employee obtained a greater benefit (although Reed continued to retain the entire benefit of the employer NICs saving).

The calculation made under the RTB operated as follows:

The employee's gross (usually weekly) salary was calculated by multiplying the employee's hourly rate by the number of hours worked.
A daily amount was calculated (based on a matrix, the values for which included the employee's tax bracket and whether travel was by public or private transport and inner or outside London). The daily amount was then multiplied by the number of days worked. This amount was deducted from gross pay to give total payments.
A travel allowance (calculated by reference to scale rates agreed with HMRC) was then calculated and deducted from total payments. This gave taxable pay.
Tax and NICs were calculated on taxable pay.
The travel allowance was then paid as a tax-free benefit.

Accordingly, the amounts deducted continued to be greater than the tax-free benefit added back to the employee's net pay. Employees were not told of the scale rates that HMRC had agreed with Reed.

The change from the RTA scheme to the RTB scheme was communicated to employees by a list of questions and answers and by amendments to the employee staff handbook. The employee handbook expressly stated that the employee would need to make a "salary sacrifice" to be within the RTB scheme. The amount sacrificed was not a fixed daily or weekly amount.

The employment terms

A number of versions of the terms and conditions of employment existed throughout the relevant period. The conditions in use before April 1999 included the following clauses:

“1. The Temporary Employee's employment and continuous employment begins on the date of the commencement of the current assignment. 2. Reed will endeavour to find the Temporary Employee the opportunity to work in the capacity specified on the Temporary Employee's copy of the time sheet where there is a suitable assignment with a Client for the supply of such work. Reed reserves the right to offer any assignment to such temporary employees as it may elect where that assignment is. suitable for several workers. 3. The duration of the Temporary Employee's employment will be for so long as Reed offers work to the Temporary Employee. It is anticipated that this will be for the duration of the assignment with the Client provided that the Temporary Employee satisfies the Client's requirements. Reed may instruct the Temporary Employee to end the assignment at any time without specifying reasons.”

The conditions also provided that Reed was obliged to endeavour to find work for the employee but it could elect to which employee is offered assignments. The employee was under no obligation to accept any particular assignment.

Reed's advisors confirmed during correspondence to Reed in 2001, that the contracts "only applied when the [employees] are carrying out assignments on behalf of Reed" and Reed also considered that the contracts applied "from assignment to assignment" and that there is no "umbrella contract".

Significant changes were made to the terms and conditions of employment in April 2004. The conditions in use after April 2004 included the following clauses:

“3. The Temporary Employee's employment and continuous employment begins on the date of the commencement of the current assignment or secondment.

4. Reed will endeavour to find the Temporary Employee the opportunity to work in the capacity as agreed at registration and specified on the Temporary Employee's copy of the time sheet where suitable work with a Client is available. Where the Temporary Employee is offered work with a Client, his/her copy of the time sheet will indicate whether this will be on an ASSIGNMENT or a SECONDMENT basis.

7. The duration of the Temporary Employee's employment will be for the duration or likely duration of the assignment or secondment with the Client as notified prior to the commencement of the assignment or secondment provided that the Temporary Employee satisfies the Client's requirements. Reed may instruct the Temporary Employee to end the assignment or secondment at any time without specifying reasons.…”

By mid-2004, it became apparent to Reed that HMRC was concerned about the nature of the employment contracts and considered that Reed's employees were engaged under separate contracts that last for the duration of an assignment rather than an overarching contract that extended over multiple assignments. The significance, if HMRC's view prevailed, was that the employees were not entitled to tax relief for travel to temporary workplaces, as each assignment would be considered a permanent workplace. Reed therefore amended the employee terms and conditions so that it started from the employee's first assignment or secondment rather than the current assignment or secondment. The employment terms were amended again in July 2006 to guarantee a minimum of 336 hours paid work in any 12-month period.

The employment contracts provided little detail about remuneration simply providing for employees to be paid for each hour worked on the basis of the notified hourly rate. The RTA and RTB schemes were not mentioned and the contracts did not provide for reduction of pay with expenses being paid instead. The employee handbook explained that the "Exp Adj" figure on the payslip was an adjustment to gross salary. As noted above, revisions to the employee handbook were made when the RTB scheme took effect explained that the "TRB ADJ" figure on the payslip was a salary sacrifice.

Dispensations

HMRC granted Reed five dispensations covering the period 6 April 1998 to 5 April 2006.

The first dispensation was granted in November 1998 but back-dated to 6 April 1998. It was granted on the basis of assurances provided by Reed that:

“We confirm that the dispensation will apply only to employees of Reed Staffing Services Limited who have no permanent workplace, and who are required to attend various locations for a limited period only.”

“We confirm that the temporary workplace of the employee will vary from one assignment to the other.… The only time similar journeys will be an issue is when the assignment is not for a limited duration or temporary purpose, in which case the employee will not be entitled to any expense allowance for travel and subsistence.”

HMRC did not, however, seek copies of the employees' contracts until 2004.

HMRC revoked the dispensation to the extent it applied to travel and subsistence allowances with effect from 6 April 2006. It did not revoke the dispensation retrospectively on the ground that it didn't need to as the payments Reed made did not fall within the terms of the dispensation (the payments were earnings taxable under section 62 rather than expenses taxable under section 70).

HMRC's determinations

HMRC issued determinations against Reed in accordance with regulation 80 of the Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2682) and notices of decision in accordance with regulation 67 of the Social Security Contributions Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1004) covering the period 6 January 2001 to 5 April 2006. Together they assess both the employer's NICs for which HMRC says Reed should have accounted, and the sums which HMRC says Reed should have deducted (as tax or NICs) from employees' salaries. The overall amount in dispute, including interest, is in the order of £158 million. Reed appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (tribunal). Reed also brought judicial review proceedings on the basis that HMRC's actions (in failing to apply the dispensations) breached their legitimate expectations.

First-tier Tribunal's decision

The judicial review proceedings were stayed until after the determination of the tax appeals.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed Reed's appeal ruling that:

There was no effective salary sacrifice. So far as the RTA was concerned, the employees were not told that they were making a salary sacrifice and, even if they were, the possibility of being able to opt out of the scheme rendered it ineffective. So far as the RTB was concerned, Reed provided no benefit in return for the sacrifice.
The employees were not employed under overarching contracts. Accordingly, the employees were not attending at temporary workplaces and the travel allowances were "earnings" taxable under section 62 of ITEPA rather than reimbursed expenses under section 72. It followed that the dispensations could not apply.

The FTT also made rulings on the hypothetical basis that it was wrong in its ruling that the travel allowances were earnings. For a full discussion of the First-tier Tribunal's decision, see Legal update, Temporary workers, salary sacrifice and travel expenses (First-tier Tribunal).

Reed appealed to the Upper Tribunal. It also sought permission for judicial review on the basis that it had a substantive legitimate expectation that the travel allowances would not be subject to tax and NICs. Further that, in the absence of serious and material misrepresentations, HMRC would not revoke the dispensation retrospectively and that HMRC would not seek tax and NICs retrospectively from Reed (or its employees).

Upper Tribunal's decision

The Upper Tribunal (tribunal) dismissed Reed's appeal.

It made the preliminary point, after a review of the tribunal rules and case law on jurisdiction, that it only had limited scope to interfere with the factual and evaluative decisions of the FTT.

The tribunal dealt with Reed's objections to various of the FTT's findings of fact, as follows. The tribunal agreed with HMRC that they were a "pernickety attack ... amounting to the deployment of a fine toothcomb with the intention of discovering detailed grounds of purported criticism."

How the RTA and RTB schemes operated. The tribunal rejected Reed's argument that the FTT had misunderstood the operation of the RTA and RTB schemes. While accepting that the FTT was a "little loose in its language", for example, by describing the "Exp Adj" in the RTA scheme as a deduction from the employee's net pay rather than a deduction from gross pay (see The Reed Travel Allowance scheme ), the tribunal considered that the FTT understood how the schemes worked.
The benefit that the employees received from the RTA and RTB schemes. Reed objected to the FTT's finding that the employees enjoyed no or an unfairly small benefit under the schemes. Reed suggested that this finding was relevant to the FTT's determination of whether there was an effective salary sacrifice (although Reed conceded that it was not entirely clear what relevance the FTT put on the size of the benefit). The tribunal concluded that the FTT's determination of the salary sacrifice issue was based on the character of the deduction rather than the size of the benefit. This was clear from the FTT's statement that the "supposed salary sacrifice ... was no more than an arithmetical adjustment whose purpose was to ensure that Reed secured the intended share of the benefit".
The explanation of the schemes given to the employees. Reed criticised the FTT's findings that Reed concealed the detail and operation of the dispensations and that the employees would not have participated in the schemes if they had understood them. The tribunal considered that the FTT was entitled to make a finding of fact that the details of the dispensations were not revealed to the employees. It also determined that the FTT's comments about employees participating in the schemes was an expression of opinion made in the context of findings about the parties' relative benefits and the fact that the information provided by Reed was not sufficient to enable employees to weigh up the benefits of participating in the schemes against the downsides of reduced contributory benefits.
The nature of the relationship between Reed and the employees. (Discussed below.)
Whether Reed would have gone ahead with the schemes without a dispensation. The tribunal agreed with Reed that the FTT had erred in finding that there was a possibility that the taxpayer would have gone ahead with the schemes without the benefit of a dispensation.
Reed's understanding of the schemes. The tribunal rejected the taxpayer's criticisms of various findings including that the schemes were "risky" and "aggressive" and that the schemes had not been clearly spelt out to employees as having no significance so far as the FTT's decisions were concerned.
Reed's disclosure to HMRC. Reed was concerned about the FTT's finding that its application for a dispensation was not "wholly frank". However, in this context, the tribunal considered that the FTT's comment was concerned with the adequacy of the disclosure about the quality of the sampling exercise required to establish the appropriateness of the scale rates. (The tribunal considers the application in the context of Reed's legitimate expectation claim below.)
HMRC's understandings of the scheme. The tribunal determined that there was sufficient evidence before the FTT for it to conclude that HMRC "probably did not" understand the RTA scheme.

Did the employees enter into an effective salary sacrifice?

The tribunal ruled that the FTT was entitled to conclude, in respect of the RTA scheme, that while the employees had agreed to be paid in accordance with the current scheme, they had not agreed to be paid anything other than a salary derived from multiplying the agreed hourly rate by the number of hours worked. Consistent with the decision of the House of Lords in Heaton v Bell, there was merely a re-labelling of the employee's contractual salary. The tribunal rejected Reed's argument that the "opt out" principle in Heaton v Bell had no application because the present case was not concerned with the conversion of a non-monetary benefit to a monetary one. The opt-out principle goes wider than that.

Likewise, the tribunal ruled that the FTT was entitled to conclude that there was no effective salary sacrifice in respect of the RTB scheme. The RTB scheme enabled Reed to apply the dispensation to enable it to "attribute part of the pay entirely notionally to the reimbursement of expenses". That was not sufficient because it failed to make clear to the employees that their hourly rate had been reduced, with the reduction being paid as tax-free expenses.

Were the terms of the RTA and RTB schemes incorporated?

The tribunal rejected HMRC's argument that the FTT was wrong to disregard the "entire agreement" clause in the employees' contracts. Case law supports the proposition that it is appropriate not to regard an entire agreement clause as determinative in all cases.

Were the travel allowances earnings or expenses assuming they were paid in respect of ordinary commuting?

The tribunal agreed with the FTT that the case law authorities support the proposition that there is a distinction between expenses incurred in getting to work and expenses incurred in doing the work. The cost of ordinary commuting (getting to work) is personal expenditure and if it is reimbursed it is taxable as earnings.

Were the employees engaged under "overarching" contracts?

The tribunal determined that section 4 of ITEPA 2003 was concerned with contractual rights. Accordingly, two questions must be answered: does a contract exist during the time the employee is not on an assignment and, if it does, is it a contract of employment?

The tribunal considered the three terms that the FTT determined applied during periods when the employee was not on assignment, which gave rise to a contract of some sort. These were that the employee had to give notice to take paid holiday (holiday pay was a statutory rather than contractual entitlement), both parties had to give statutory notice and the "weak" obligation on Reed to endeavour to find work for the employee. The tribunal agreed with HMRC that the first two terms did not point to a contract: the first being a statutory right and the notice provision being of no practical effect given the employee would suffer no loss if notice was not given. The third term was a "shadowy" right that did not exist until 2005. If pressed, the tribunal would find that a contract existed in the gaps only for later periods. In any event, the tribunal agreed with the FTT that even if there were a contract, it was not an employment contract because there was insufficient mutuality to found an employment contract. Reed was not obliged to provide work or wages and the employee was not obliged to undertake that work.

The tribunal rejected Reed's argument that employment in the relevant provisions was defined inclusively (to include contracts of service) and therefore could include employments otherwise than under a contract of service.

Effect of the dispensation

The tribunal considered, hypothetically in light of its rulings, whether, assuming the travel expenses were expenses rather than earnings, but were not tax deductible, the grant of the dispensation effectively removed the tax and NICs charge. It agreed with the FTT that if HMRC wrongly determines that no additional tax is due and issues a dispensation accordingly, the dispensation will be validly granted and will apply until revoked. The dispensation would effectively remove the expenses from the charge to tax altogether and would relieve the employer of the obligation to apply PAYE.

Legitimate expectation

The tribunal refused permission for judicial review because Reed had failed to put all its cards face upwards on the table.

The tribunal made the following preliminary points:

The FTT does not have a judicial review jurisdiction.
HMRC cannot act outside its powers and, therefore, cannot be held to any promise that it has no power to give. However, a legitimate expectation claim cannot be defeated by the fact that, but for representation, tax would have been due.
Non-disclosure does not have to be deliberate to engage the MFK principle.

It rejected Reed's challenge to the FTT's finding that Reed had not volunteered all the details of the scheme to HMRC. The tribunal considered that there was ample evidence before the FTT to support its finding. This included evidence from the taxpayer's advisers, which described the schemes as "risky" and "aggressive" and showed that they had "qualms" about the "lack of disclosure". Further, that while Reed told HMRC that it was sharing the benefit with the employees, it did not disclose the disparity in benefit

Comment

While most of the tribunal's judgment confirms the FTT's decision, there are a number of helpful clarifications. These include that:

An overarching contract requires mutuality of obligation in the gaps between assignments (which is consistent with HMRC's view of overarching contracts). A commitment to offer a certain amount of work is capable of founding mutuality, though the tribunal did not confirm the extent of the commitment required. HMRC's view is that the minimum must be at least 336 hours in a 12-month period.
The opt-out principle applies to salary sacrifice arrangements whether the salary was reduced in return for a monetary or non-monetary benefit.
The effectiveness of a salary sacrifice does not depend on the proportion of the benefit received by the employee, but on the character of the deduction.

Case

Reed Employment Plc & Ors v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0160 (TCC) (Mrs Justice Proudman DBE and Judge Timothy Herrington).

Temporary workers, salary sacrifice and travel expenses (Upper Tribunal) | Practical Law