Taxed but not benefiting

[webberg]

It gets better than that, from HMRC's words:

Not employment status for tax reasons just simply employment status.

You need to be careful with that.

If a case went to Employment Tribunal, would a Judge there place any weight on a guidance note from the tax authority that - in context - is very clearly concerned with tax matters?

I suggest therefore that reading into HMRC's use of a phrase, something that can be applied in areas of law outside taxation, is at best hopeful thinking.

[webberg]

I'm also going to point out here (and perhaps in other threads), that I'm not trying to be difficult or pedantic or to fight HMRC's corner.

Tax and tax law is simultaneously very precise and very vague. Certain words and phrases can have closely defined meanings but the use of them in the context of the legislation can lend them meanings that may or may not be intended and which a Judge often struggles to untangle.

In the past this has allowed promoters to make certain claims as to the effectiveness of their products which only subsequent cases and statements from Parliament (I don't count statements from HMRC as they have no better idea of the will of Parliament than you and I do) have shown to be rather less than correct.

You would have thought HMRC had learned a lesson and that they would be rather more precise. I think however that they have failed that exam and continue to be very lax in how they use words.

My purpose therefore in being picky, precise, pedantic [insert favourite word here] is to try and demonstrate that it is not enough to read the words from HMRC. You have to understand historical and present context and the limitations of HMRC in that they are a tax authority and not legal experts.