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.

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.

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.

If you are thinking about selling a business or shares, it is important to understand how Business Asset Disposal Relief works, particularly with rates set to increase from April 2026.

Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) provides a valuable tax advantage, offering a reduced rate of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the sale of a business, shares in a trading company or an individual’s stake in a trading partnership.

The present rate of BADR is 14% for disposals made during the 2025-26 tax year. Currently, these rates are set to increase in the 2026-27 tax year starting on 6 April 2026 to 18%. As a result, disposals made after April 2026 will face a higher CGT rate.

These planned changes in the BADR rates can have a significant impact on tax planning for business owners and investors. Furthermore, it is worth noting that upcoming measures in the Autumn Budget could further diminish the benefits of these reliefs.

Despite these changes, the lifetime limit for claiming BADR currently remains at £1 million, which means that individuals can use the relief multiple times, provided their total gains from qualifying disposals do not exceed this threshold.

Changes have also been made to Investors’ Relief. As of 30 October 2024, the lifetime limit for Investors' Relief was reduced from £10 million to £1 million, with CGT rates now aligning with those for BADR at 14% and set to rise to 18% in April 2026.

The tax you pay on the use of a company car depends largely on its CO2 emissions, so choosing a lower emission or electric vehicle can make a significant difference to your overall tax cost.

The benefits in kind (BIK) tax on company cars can be quite significant, with taxable rates ranging from 3% to 37% of the car’s list price when new. The rate depends on various factors, primarily the car’s CO2 emissions and fuel type. For instance, a petrol fuelled car emitting 155 g/km of CO2 or more would be taxed at the highest rate of 37% of its original list price. In contrast, an electric car with a range of 130 miles or more could benefit from the lowest rate of just 3%, significantly reducing the taxable benefit.

This creates a strong incentive for those driving company cars to switch to electric vehicles, as they would experience a noticeable reduction in their tax liability. This shift not only benefits the employees but also employers, who will see a decrease in Class 1A National Insurance contributions. These contributions are based on the total value of benefits provided in a tax year, so switching to electric vehicles helps lower overall costs for the employer.

Diesel cars attract an additional 4% supplement if they do not meet the Real Driving Emissions 2 (RDE2) standard. However, the supplement is removed entirely for diesel vehicles that are RDE2 compliant. The maximum BIK rate, including any diesel supplement, remains capped at 37%.

The taxable benefit is typically calculated based on the car’s manufacturer’s list price, which includes VAT, delivery charges, and number plates. The price considered is the list price on the day before the car is first registered. Any additional accessories fitted to the car also increase the taxable value. There are some exceptions. Employees can also reduce the list price by up to £5,000 if they make a capital contribution towards the cost of the vehicle. Special rules apply to classic cars, which have their own method for calculating the list price.