CGI Group (Europe) Ltd. v HMRC

Last updated

The VAT Tribunal case of CGI Group (Europe) Limited v HMRC ([2010] UKFTT 396 (TC)) is a United Kingdom legal case which addressed the VAT treatment of a joint employment arrangement in the context of outsourcing services. [1]

Contents

When two practices jointly employ a member of staff, one employer can pay the employees their wage first, then the other employer can pass the money back to them without VAT as it is not considered to be a transaction. However, this decision shows that the arrangements may give rise to an unexpected VAT liability for joint contracts of employment. [2]

Case information

The tribunal met on 26, 27 and 29 July 2010. [3]

The case of CGI Group (Europe) Limited demonstrated that, where an arrangement is structured in order to obtain a particular VAT treatment, it is important to ensure both the contractual documentation and the substance and reality of the arrangement support this treatment. Cox, an insurance company, outsourced the running of its IT department to CGI. Under the outsourcing arrangements with CGI, the staffs became jointly employed by both Cox and CGI and a master services agreement was also made between them. As Cox was an insurance company it had (like many other financial institutions) a limited ability to recover input VAT incurred on fees paid for outsourcing services. CGI believed that the money paid for the shared wages would be excluded from VAT as the employees were under a joint employment contract. There were also a number of detailed arrangements regarding the employees under the master services agreement, including that CGI agreed not to take certain actions in relation to the transferred employees for a period of six months and to indemnify Cox in respect of all liabilities relating to them from the transfer date.

The decision

Even though the Tribunal judge accepted that legally the employees were jointly employed by CGI and Cox, the staff in reality were working for CGI only. CGI had a high degree of control of the employees and this overrode the joint employment contract. Cox still had a right to control the employees. Therefore the VAT was expected to be paid in full.

From this case, the employers should to be more cautious under joint employment circumstances, including the terms on the agreement and the arrangement of an employee between two employers, in order to minimize the risk of VAT being applied. It is also a reminder that the courts will look beyond the contract to decide the correct VAT analysis. [4] [5]

Related Research Articles

Employment is a relationship between two parties regulating the provision of paid labour services. Usually based on a contract, one party, the employer, which might be a corporation, a not-for-profit organization, a co-operative, or any other entity, pays the other, the employee, in return for carrying out assigned work. Employees work in return for wages, which can be paid on the basis of an hourly rate, by piecework or an annual salary, depending on the type of work an employee does, the prevailing conditions of the sector and the bargaining power between the parties. Employees in some sectors may receive gratuities, bonus payments or stock options. In some types of employment, employees may receive benefits in addition to payment. Benefits may include health insurance, housing, disability insurance. Employment is typically governed by employment laws, organisation or legal contracts.

United Kingdom labour law Labour rights in the UK

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum charter of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.

Freelance, freelancer, or freelance worker, are terms commonly used for a person who is self-employed and not necessarily committed to a particular employer long-term. Freelance workers are sometimes represented by a company or a temporary agency that resells freelance labor to clients; others work independently or use professional associations or websites to get work.

An independent contractor is a person, business, or corporation that provides goods or services under a written contract or a verbal agreement. Unlike employees, independent contractors do not work regularly for an employer but work as required, when they may be subject to law of agency. Independent contractors are usually paid on a freelance basis. Contractors often work through a limited company or franchise, which they themselves own, or may work through an umbrella company.

An employment contract or contract of employment is a kind of contract used in labour law to attribute rights and responsibilities between parties to a bargain. The contract is between an "employee" and an "employer". It has arisen out of the old master-servant law, used before the 20th century. Employment contracts relies on the concept of authority, in which the employee agrees to accept the authority of the employer and in exchange, the employer agrees to pay the employee a stated wage.

Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.

Permatemp is a U.S. term for a temporary employee who works for an extended period for a single staffing client. The word is a portmanteau of the words permanent and temporary.

IR35 refers to the United Kingdom's anti-avoidance tax legislation designed to tax 'disguised' employment at a rate similar to employment. In this context, "disguised employees" means workers who receive payments from a client via an intermediary, for example, their own limited company, and whose relationship with their client is such that had they been paid directly they would be employees of the client.

The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.

Employment tribunals are tribunal public bodies in England and Wales and Scotland which have statutory jurisdiction to hear many kinds of disputes between employers and employees. The most common disputes are concerned with unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and employment discrimination. The tribunals are part of the UK tribunals system, administered by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service and regulated and supervised by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.

<i>Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner</i> United Kingdom employment law court case

Nethermere Ltd v Gardiner And Another [1984] ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee.

Buchan and Ivey v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1997] IRLR 80 is a UK insolvency law and labour law case, concerning the protection of employees' salaries on their employer's insolvency.

<i>Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd</i>

Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd (2013) C-426/11 is an EU law and UK labour law case concerning whether an employer may agree to incorporate a collective agreement into an individual contract, and if that agreement has a provision for automatic updating of some terms, whether that transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006. The UK Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice the question whether national courts could give a more favourable interpretation to legislation than had been given by German courts.

<i>Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher</i>

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,

the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.

<i>Cable & Wireless plc v Muscat</i>

Cable & Wireless plc v Muscat [2006] EWCA Civ 220 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for an implied contract between an employee and a place they work through an employment agency. It holds that with reference to the reality of the relationship, an implied contract should be found according to the ordinary rules of construction.

<i>Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board</i>

Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1992] IRLR 469 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that a variation of company workplace customs, which are incorporated into individual contracts of employment can take place after a proper consultation without breaching employees' contracts.

Joint employment is the sharing of control and supervision of an employee's activity among two or more business entities.

<i>Uber BV v Aslam</i> British labour law case

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.

Labour hire is a form of employment in which an employer directs their de jure employees to perform work at an external workplace, belonging to a client of the legal employer.

References

  1. ↑ Olswang.com (2010), Outsourcing: employee recharge element of outsourcing fee subject to VAT despite joint employment re-accessed 29 October 2016
  2. ↑ Thirdsector.co.uk, (2014). VAT fears over joint contracts. [online] Available at: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/vat-fears-joint-contracts/finance/article/1042175 [Accessed 30 Oct. 2014].
  3. ↑ CGI Group (Europe) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 396 (TC) (20 August 2010), accessed 29 October 2016
  4. ↑ Ogletree Deakins, Betsy Johnson (2013). Yours, mine, or ours? Avoiding joint employer and contractor misclassification . Available: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=126c4129-f04b-4bbd-ac5f-060aa5135b71. Last accessed 28th Oct 2014.
  5. ↑ Bakertilly.co.uk, (2014). VAT – joint contracts of employment. [online] Available at: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 28 October 2014. Retrieved 28 October 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) [Accessed 30 Oct. 2014].
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.