CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – whether the Apellant’s business “consists of or includes the…the furnishing or arranging for the furnishing of labour in carrying out construction operations” (s 566(2) Taxes Act 1988) – yes
Whether failure to inspect registration certificates was minor and technical (s 565(4)) – no
THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS HUDSON CONTRACT SERVICE LIMITED
- and -
HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Special Commissioner: DR JOHN F. AVERY JONES CBE
23 August 2005
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FACT
However strange the written contract between the Appellant and the Operative and between the Appellant and the Client may be, I find that they are valid and enforceable contracts binding the parties to what they have agreed to do.
While the Appellant may be unaware of all the terms negotiated between the Client and the Operative this does not mean they are not binding on the Appellant. One may doubt that anyone would wish to enter into such contract if the construction industry scheme did not exist but this is not avoidance of the scheme; it is the appellant being paid for taking responsibilities under the scheme that would otherwise fall on the Client.
The Client and the Operative negotiate terms, which are expressly not a contract between them.
Given all these factors it is impossible for me to find that there is an express oral contract between the Client and the Operative.
On the evidence before me I would not come to the same conclusion that the Appellant provided only a payroll facility.
Here all parties have negatived the existence of a contract between the Client and the Operative; and the Appellant-Client contract requires the Client to explain to the Operative that his contract is with the Appellant and not with the Client, which I have found the Client does explain; and the Appellant-Operative contract states that the contract is not with the Client.
I also bear in mind that we are discussing the failure to inspect a registration card (without which payment cannot be made net), rather than failure to inspect a certificate (without which payment cannot be made gross). Failure through ignorance to do this (or rather to make sure that the Client does it) does not in my view demonstrate a cavalier attitude of the taxpayer. Indeed collecting and retaining copies of the registration cards demonstrated the opposite and is quiet different from making a payment without asking about the existence of the a registration card.
My decision is:
The Appellant’s business “consists of or includes the… the furnishing or arranging for the furnishing of labour in carrying out construction operations” within s 566(2) of the Taxes Act 1988;
The Appellant’s defaults in relation to inspection of registrations cards during the qualifying period is not minor and technical but in relation to future periods there is reason to expect that the appellant will comply with s 565(8)
DATED the 30th day of August 2005