The Reed Group last week lost a first tier tribunal against HMRC. HMRC decided to revoke an expenses dispensation for Reed’s temps after eight years.
The bill for stands at £158 million. Unsurprisingly Reed have asked for a judicial review of the decision.
As a potted history of the case: In 1998 Reed decided to make a number of its temps who were working within several of its staffing agency subsidiaries into full time employees. At the time Reed were advised by Robson Rhodes, a partnership of chartered accountants who were bought out by Grant Thornton in 2007, that they may be able to benefit from a relaxation in the rules on travel and subsistence expenses which would allow them to offer a salary sacrifice scheme to the employees.
Reed employees were given the option of joining the Reed travel allowance scheme where they would receive a lower level of gross pay, but would gain through a tax-free scale payment based on where they worked and how they got there.
The crux of the case is the definition of a temporary worker in relation to a temporary assignment. From HMRC’s point of view, although the temp workers were only employed for the duration of each assignment, the workplaces amounted to permanent workplaces for the duration of each assignment. This means that ordinary commuting costs were not deductible.
It is also worth noting that Reed benefitted through this in terms of income tax and National Insurance Contributions.
One of the key reasons for the decision by the tribunal to side with HMRC was that the employees hardly received any of the benefits of the scheme, whilst Reed made large savings through it.
The judges stated that:
“Far from providing a benefit to the employed temp, [Reed] appropriated a significant part of the saving to itself; and the supposed sacrifice, however it was presented, was no more than an arithmetical adjustment whose purpose was to ensure that Reed secured the intended share of the benefit. It was not, in our view, a sacrifice in the true sense of that word.”
A further deciding factor was the consideration of the status of the workplaces – were they temporary or permanent?
They found that Reed had a contract of employment with its agency staff, but the judges believed that the contracts did not extend to periods when particular assignments had ended.
The judges stated that Reed were under an obligation to find opportunities to work for the staff, which temps could decline. However, they found that Reed exercised no control over the temps when they were between assignments and the contracts lacked specific and necessary detail.
“While we accept that there was a contract of some sort when the employed temp was not on an assignment, it was not a contract of employment,” they concluded.
Now the case will go for judicial review following Reed’s expressed dissatisfaction with the decision by the tribunal.