Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
Hands silhouettes of business people standing opposite the window

Dad’s advice was not tax deductible


A payment to the taxpayer’s father was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade, and was further undermined by the father’s evidence to the tribunal. 

19th Oct 2021
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

David Cation and a colleague formed Glassal Limited in March 2012 to provide bespoke glazing systems. Cation provided his personal services to Glassal via his sole tradership, DC Consult (DC).

During 2014/15, DC invoiced Glassal for £70,000, but it also incurred £30,000 of costs as a consultancy fee paid to Cation’s father, Peter Cation (Peter).

HMRC disallowed the £30,000 expense on the basis it was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade.

Mentoring and advice

Cation advised HMRC that the £30,000 fee was for Peter acting as a “mentor and advisor” to Cation over a period August 2011 to March 2014. The £30,000 was paid in smaller amounts, spanning the period July 2014 to February 2017.

HMRC understandably queried why the entire £30,000 cost had been set against the 2014/15 profits, when the work and the payments spanned two separate three-year periods. Cation replied to say the invoice had only been raised once Glassal was successfully established. He also confirmed that Peter was on a “success fee” engagement, where he would only be paid once an outcome had been achieved.

The invoice raised by Peter was no more than a hand-written note with no specific details or dates regarding the work completed. HMRC felt that there was insufficient evidence to show that the payment was genuine and wholly and exclusively for Cation’s trade.

Late registration and mis-stated income

It also came to light that Cation had failed to notify HMRC when he became self-employed. He submitted a 2013/14 tax return in June 2017, after the tax enquiry into his affairs was opened.

The 2013/14 return showed £20,000 of ‘freelance income’ which was not subject to Class 4 NIC. HMRC argued that this was clearly self-employed income and that Cation knew this to be the case.

Following an independent review, Cation appealed to the first tier tribunal (TC 08253). The additional NIC payable for 2013/14 was not part of this appeal.

FTT decision

The FTT sang the praises of Cation, finding him “sharp, sophisticated and successful”. They were also, in a more backhanded way, quite positive about his father Peter, commenting that he clearly wished to assist his son’s case, but without compromising his professional integrity. This integrity, however, led to Peter harming Cation’s case, such as when he admitted that he hadn’t expected to be paid for the work he did.

Peter’s experience was also noted to be with businesses several magnitudes smaller than the ones Cation dealt with, so the FTT expressed doubt as to how useful Peter’s advice would have been to Cation and whether the amounts were in fact just familial payments.

The FTT also noted that the largest payments to Peter were made after the tax enquiry started. In fact a lot of evidence presented struck the FTT as being created or tailored with the benefit of hindsight.

The onus was on Cation to prove the payment was wholly and exclusively for his trade and the FTT ruled he did not achieve this. Additional tax of £14,880.94 was confirmed to be payable for 2014/15.


Register for free to continue reading

It’s 100% free and provides unlimited access to the latest accounting news, advice and insight every day. As well as access to this exclusive article, you can:

Content lock down, tick icon

View all AccountingWEB content

Content lock down, tick icon

Comment on articles

Content lock down, tick icon

Watch our digital shows and more

Access content now

Already have an account?

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Paul Crowley
19th Oct 2021 13:40

Hopeless case
Should have done a deal at the beginning of enquiry

Thanks (3)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
By Hugo Fair
19th Oct 2021 14:07

Interesting that being seen as “sharp, sophisticated and successful” by the FTT was arguably the basis of his downfall.
It seems to have caused him to feel he could outwit the experts, but actually caused the FTT to treat his 'errors' as deliberate.
Not so much "savvy" as smug?

Thanks (4)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
By Paul Crowley
19th Oct 2021 14:46

Yes agree
Why would such a savvy man need help from Dad when Dad had never been involved in anything as grandiose before?
Always good to be a bit humble at tribunals

Look forward to reading the taxation mag version, should it be listed.
The last three weeks have been a bit disappointing as HMRC have won everything listed on the tax cases section

Thanks (2)
By ShakingMyHead
20th Oct 2021 11:07

My question is... if Dad received this £30k payment, was it declared on his tax return? And will he be getting a refund of tax paid on it??

Thanks (1)
Replying to ShakingMyHead:
By Paul Crowley
20th Oct 2021 17:09

No refund
He received the money (Did he? If not then this was fraudulent)
Just not an allowable expence in the company.

Disallowed costs are still taxable on the recipient

Thanks (1)
By petestar1969
20th Oct 2021 12:02

Savvy? More like cocky, pillock!

Thanks (0)