Author: Glenn

A recent ruling has established that temporary worker arrangements do not constitute a single, continuous employment relationship in which workers retain the unfettered right to refuse assignments. This effectively confirms the prerequisite for a mutuality of obligation when accruing tax breaks.

Mainpay engaged temporary workers in the service sector, contending that its employment relationship constituted a single, albeit discontinuous form of employment, effectively rendering its various workplaces transient. Based on this viewpoint, Mainpay reimbursed its workers for travel and subsistence expenses and deducted these amounts from their income for tax purposes. Mainpay also used rounded sums, or benchmark scales, for subsistence expenses without obtaining formal dispensation from HMRC.

HMRC argued that each assignment was a separate instance of employment, making each workplace permanent for the purpose of a given assignment. This meant that travel and subsistence expenses were likely non-deductible without dispensation.

As the two contracts in question (2010 & 2013) were issued more than four years after the relevant tax year, this required HMRC to prove that the loss of tax was "brought about carelessly" by Mainpay so as to justify a six-year extended time limit. The Tribunal ruled in their favour, finding that neither the 2010 nor the 2013 contract constituted overarching contracts of employment, as the workers retained the unfettered right to refuse assignments. This, in turn, meant they lacked the necessary mutuality of obligation in the gaps between assignments. The Tribunal held that each assignment was an instance of separate employment and that the workplaces were therefore, in effect, permanent, making the expenses non-deductible. The Tribunal also found that Mainpay was "careless" in claiming the deductions, particularly in relation to the 2010 contract, because it had relied on vague assurances from employment lawyers.

This contention was escalated to the Court of Appeal, which rejected Mainpay’s argument that the parties’ intention should be decisive in construing the contract, as what essentially mattered was the reality of the arrangement, which was one of intermittent employment. Thus, each assignment was effectively under a separate contract of employment for the purposes of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA) and, therefore, created a permanent workplace. The Court further upheld the finding that the loss of tax was "brought about carelessly" by Mainpay, validating the extended assessment time limit permitted under the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA).  

The case provides a clear distinction between a general agreement that governs future work and an actual contract of employment that lays out the terms under which future, separate contracts of employment will be formed. This type of agreement alone does not create a state of continuous employment. Companies are thus advised to seek advice when creating discontinuous employment frameworks in an effort to minimise tax liabilities.

Taking on the role of a company director is more than holding a title. Directors have legal duties that shape how a company is run, how decisions are made and how risks are managed. These responsibilities exist to protect the business, its shareholders, employees and anyone who deals with the company. Even in a small or family run company, these duties are taken seriously and can have personal consequences if ignored.

Directors must act in the best interests of the company. This means making decisions that support the long term success of the business, rather than personal gain. It also means considering the interests of employees, customers, suppliers and the wider community where relevant. Directors are expected to use reasonable care, skill and judgement. If a director has particular expertise, such as finance or technical knowledge, a higher standard may be applied in those areas.

Financial oversight is a key responsibility. Directors must ensure that accounts are kept up to date, tax filings are made correctly and that the company is solvent. If the company begins to face financial difficulty, directors must take action early. Continuing to trade while knowing the company cannot meet its debts can lead to personal liability.

Directors must also avoid conflicts of interest. If a personal interest overlaps with a business decision, it must be declared. Transparency and good record keeping are essential.

Good governance is not about bureaucracy. It is about understanding the business and managing it responsibly. Regular board discussions, clear financial reporting and practical risk management go a long way to protecting both the company and its directors.

Many businesses arrange insurance in the early days and then only look at it again when something changes, or when a renewal comes around. The difficulty with this approach is that risks evolve over time, and gaps in cover often only become visible when there is a claim. A short review with an insurance broker can help ensure that your policies reflect how the business currently operates and that protection remains adequate.

Business interruption

Business interruption cover is often misunderstood. It is designed to replace lost income while the business recovers from damage or disruption. The key issue is whether the indemnity period is long enough. If specialist equipment or premises are involved, recovery may take longer than expected. A broker can help evaluate assumptions and adjust cover accordingly.

Cyber risk

Cyber-attacks are now common across all sectors, not just large companies. Standard insurance policies rarely cover data breaches or ransomware incidents. Cyber insurance provides technical support as well as financial cover, which can make a major difference to recovery time.

Directors and officers

Directors and senior managers can face personal claims in relation to decisions they make. Reviewing Directors and Officers cover ensures that the right individuals are protected and that policy limits match the scale of business activity.

Supply chain and contractors

If contractors or suppliers are key to operations, it is worth checking who is responsible for what. Contracts should make insurance obligations clear, and your own policies should reflect any outsourced work.

Asset values and inflation

Rising costs mean many assets are now underinsured. Reassessing replacement values can prevent reduced payouts in the event of a claim.

A brief annual review can provide reassurance and avoid unwelcome surprises. If you would like support preparing for that conversation, we can help.

Last week, we covered the new requirement for directors and persons with significant control (PSCs) to verify their identities from 18 November 2025. This process will be rolled out over 12 months, with Companies House reaching out directly to companies, providing guidance on what actions need to be taken and the deadlines for each step.

According to Companies House, ID verification is a significant step forward for UK businesses and offers numerous benefits. Ensuring that company directors and PSCs verify their identities, will help make sure that the people setting up, running and controlling companies are who they say they are.

This is intended to:

• improve the accuracy and reliability of data on the register;
• strengthen protections against fraud; and
• support a more transparent and trusted business environment.

This also enhances the credibility of data held by Companies House, which is important for businesses looking to build trust with investors, consumers and potential business partners. A verified presence on the register can help a business demonstrate they are legitimate and professional, helping them stand out in the competitive business landscape.

The introduction of ID verification will also make it harder for fraudsters or criminals to create anonymous corporate structures for illicit activities. This added layer of security strengthens the business environment by reducing the risks associated with fraud and economic crime.

For businesses, being listed on Companies House with verified details can boost credibility, aiding in securing contracts, attracting investors and accessing finance. It can also enhance opportunities for due diligence, helping companies evaluate potential suppliers and customers more confidently.

If you are self-employed and your profits are above £12,570, you may need to pay Class 4 National Insurance, so it is important to understand how the rates and rules apply to you.

Self-employed individuals are usually required to pay Class 4 National Insurance contributions (NICs) if their annual profits exceed £12,570. These contributions are calculated based on profits and are used to fund various state benefits, including the state pension, unemployment benefits and the National Health Service (NHS).

For the current 2025-26 tax year, Class 4 NIC rates are set at 6% on profits between £12,570 and £50,270, with an additional 2% charged on profits above £50,270.

Certain groups are exempt from paying Class 4 NICs, including:

• Individuals under 16 at the start of the tax year.
• Individuals over State Pension age at the start of the tax year. If someone reaches State Pension age during the tax year, they remain liable for Class 4 NICs for the entire tax year.
• Trustees and guardians of incapacitated individuals are exempt from paying Class 4 NICs on that income.

The Class 4 NIC rate is lower than the corresponding rate for employees, who pay 8% on the same income levels. Both employees and the self-employed contribute 2% on income above the higher rate threshold.

The majority of individuals pay Class 4 National Insurance via self-assessment.