Pod Engine
Podcast thumbnail for Pump Court Tax Chat

Pump Court Tax Chat

Claim This Podcast

by Pump Court Tax Chambers

14 episodes
Updated Daily
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇬🇧
14

Podcast Authority

Beta
PoorBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Pod Engine
Quality29
Social0
YouTube0
Engagement0
Learn more

Podcast Overview

Pump Court Tax Chat brings you expert analysis of key, topical tax issues from the barristers from Pump Court Tax Chambers. Whether you are a tax professional, a solicitor, accountant or interested in tax law you are in the right place. As the UK’s leading tax chambers, our team of barristers dives deep into the latest tax news, key cases and important legislative updates. From the impact of major tax changes to practical advice for navigating HMRC enquiries, insights to keep you informed and ahead of the curve. Join us every month for discussions with top tax barristers covering everything from corporate tax to personal wealth tax issues. We will keep you up to date with the latest developments and ideas. Presenter: Laura Poots Producer: Peter Shevlin A C60 Media production for Pump Court Tax Chambers https://www.pumptax.com/

Language

🇺🇲

Publishing Since

11/4/2024

Visit WebsiteAppleView on Apple PodcastsRSS Feed

Unlock The Full Podcast Authority Score Report

See how your podcast performs across key metrics

14

Podcast Authority

Beta
PoorBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Pod Engine
Quality29
Social0
YouTube0
Engagement0
Learn more
6
Excellent Areas
2
Good Performance
11
Growth Opportunities
excellent
Episode Length
43 minutes
Performing excellently!
good
Transcript Coverage
60%

Recommendations available

Unlock the full report to see detailed tips

poor
Publishing Consistency
Every 31 days

Recommendations available

Unlock the full report to see detailed tips

+16 More Metrics

Unlock comprehensive insights including:

  • • YouTube presence analysis
  • • Social media reach metrics
  • • RSS compliance scoring
  • • Podcast 2.0 features
  • • Technical standards
What's Included in Your Full Report

Detailed Analytics

  • Complete breakdown of all 19 authority metrics
  • Personalized recommendations for each metric
  • Industry benchmarks and comparisons
  • Technical RSS feed analysis and compliance scoring

Growth Strategies

  • Step-by-step action plans for improvement
  • Quick wins to boost your score immediately
  • Pro tips from successful podcasters
Get your free podcast insights report

See how your show performs across every key metric

Instant delivery
No spam
Attract Better Guests

High authority scores make your podcast more attractive to industry leaders and influencers who want to appear on credible shows.

Secure Sponsorships

Sponsors look for podcasts with proven authority and engagement. Your score demonstrates your podcast's value to potential partners.

Grow Your Audience

Understanding your strengths and weaknesses helps you make data-driven decisions to expand your listener base effectively.

1 verified contact email on file for Pump Court Tax Chat

Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.

See contact details

Recent Episodes

Episode thumbnail for S2 Ep5: Employment tax roundup

April 13, 2026

S2 Ep5: Employment tax roundup

<p><a href="https://www.pumptax.com/barrister/david-yates-kc/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">David Yates KC</a> and <a href="https://www.pumptax.com/barrister/sadiya-choudhury-kc/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Sadiya Choudhury KC</a> take a look a some of the latest employment tax cases and recent changes to employment tax legislation.</p><p><strong>Umbrella companies</strong></p><p>2:01 <strong>Mainpay</strong>: Mainpay was an umbrella company providing the services of various employees whose assignments were sourced by an employment agency. The employment point in the case was the nature of the "overarching contract" between Mainpay and the workers, and specifically whether this allowed Mainpay to reimburse travel and subsidence expenses without accounting for income tax and NIC. Consideration of the Readymix Concrete test. Could you argue a "single discontinuous working employment relationship"? Legislation has now made arguing for overarching contracts very difficult (s339A ITPA). Other aspects of this case are discussed in the most recent Tax Litigation Update podcast. </p><p>9:20 <strong>PPS Umbrella </strong>and <strong>VAT mini-umbrella fraud category: </strong>Elphysic being the lead case which is heading for the Supreme Court. However new legislation is coming in April 2026 which makes umbrella companies jointly and severally liable for NICs. The government is also reviewing the operation of umbrella companies more widely.</p><p><strong>SARS</strong></p><p>10:39 <strong>Saunders: </strong>stock appreciation rights (SARS) under a long term incentive plan. NB this case is currently on appeal. When an employee is promised something (like a contractual right) - is it the contractual right which is their earnings or is it the payment made later under it? Does Abbott v Philbin still hold good? Do SARS have a value in their own right? Does the employee derive realistic immediate value?</p><p><strong>IR35 legislation </strong></p><p>21:51 <strong>Bryan Robson Ltd</strong>: payments for acting as an ambassador for Manchester United. Was it an employment contract under the hypothetical employment test? Whether all or part of the consideration was attributable to the contract allowing exploitation of image rights and, if so, was this outside IR35? Case is on its way to the UT.</p><p>27:50 New offset mechanism in the tax legislation to allow payments to be offset against PAYE liabilities. Will this mean a decrease in IR35 cases?</p><p><strong>Payments in lieu of notice</strong></p><p>28:53 <strong>Rawlinson: </strong>was the payment in lieu of notice (PILON) (the employee was disabled due to cancer surgery) subject to income tax as earnings? Guidance on operation of the exception of s401/406 ITPA. Absence of express language as to the purpose of a PILON not necessarily fatal but leads to tax uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Salary sacrifice schemes</strong></p><p>35:43 <strong>Best Connection: </strong>the company set up a travel payment scheme (BSS) linked to a salary sacrifice scheme.</p><p>38:20 Salary sacrifice legislation under ITPA: the new rules mean that salary sacrifice schemes are now brought within the benefits legislation with some exceptions (eg electric cars, pensions, bicycles). However, contributions about £2k will be subject to NICs from April 2029. Whilst Best Connection predates all this legislation, it is still helpful on whether something is actually a salary sacrifice scheme. There is draft legislation - National Insurance Contributions Employer Pensions Contributions Bill - and further guidance promised.</p><p><strong>Agency workers legislation</strong></p><p>41:14 <strong>Tyler Security</strong>: were the dog handling services providing "personal services"? The supervision, direction and control "SDC" test.</p><p></p><p><u>Citations</u></p><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p><p>ss 338 and 339A Income Tax (Earnings &amp; Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA)</p><p>s16 ITEPA</p><p>Chapter 5, part 7 ITEPA</p><p>ss49 - 61 ITEPA (IR 35)</p><p>Schedule 1AB ITEPA</p><p>s62 ITEPA</p><p>s406 ITEPA</p><p>s65 ITEPA</p><p>s69A and 69B ITEPA</p><p>National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions Bill</p><p>ss44 - 47 ITEPA</p><p>Chapters 7 and 10 Part 2 ITEPA</p><p><strong>Cases</strong></p><p>Mainpay Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 1290</p><p>Exchequer Solutions Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKUT 25 (TCC)</p><p>Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497</p><p>HMRC v Payroll &amp; Pension Services (PPS Umbrella Company) Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 995</p><p>Elphysic Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 236 (TCC)</p><p>Saunders v HMRC [2025] UKUT 374 (TCC)</p><p>Abbott v Philbin [1961] AC 352</p><p>Bridges v Hewitt [1957] 1 WLR 674 (also known as Bridges v Bearsley)</p><p>Bryan Robson Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 56 (TC)</p><p>Basic Broadcasting Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKUT 165 (TCC)</p><p>HMRC v S&amp;L Barnes Ltd [2024] UKUT 262 (TCC)</p><p>HMRC v Professional Games Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29</p><p>Atholl House Productions Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 501</p><p>Kickabout Productions Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 502.</p><p>Rawlinson v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 45 (TC)</p><p>HMRC v Tottenham Hotspur Ltd [2017] UKUT 453 (TCC)</p><p>Hasted v Horner [1995] STC 766</p><p>The Best Connection Group Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1103 (TC)</p><p>Tyler Security Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1250 (TC)</p><p></p><p>Producer: Peter Shevlin</p><p>A <a href="https://pod60.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">pod60</a> production for <a href="https://www.pumptax.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Pump Court Tax Chambers</a></p>

Episode thumbnail for S2 3p4: Tax Litigation Update

March 23, 2026

S2 3p4: Tax Litigation Update

<p><a href="https://www.pumptax.com/barrister/ben-elliott/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Ben Elliott</a>, <a href="https://www.pumptax.com/barrister/quinlan-windle/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Quinlan Windle</a> and <a href="https://www.pumptax.com/barrister/sam-glover/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Sam Glover </a>look at recent developments in litigation focusing on procedural issues such as late appeals (Medpro), burden of proof (Sintra), the jurisdiction of the tribunal, disclosure and duty of candour, use of AI in writing judgments, assessments and penalties (eg Mainpay).</p><p>2:07 Court of Appeal judgment in <strong>Medpro </strong>(late appeals and in particular the Martland approach) – The UT can give guidance and the correct guidance in relation to late appeals is theMartland approach. Higher courts can only interfere with that guidance if there has been an error of law. Has the CA widened the grounds for appeal? Some practical points arising from the decision.</p><p>20:50 <strong>Sintra</strong> - Court of Appeal judgment concerning burden of proof in penalty cases.</p><p>25:33 <strong> Jurisdiction of tribunal to consider public law points</strong> – in particular the recent decision in Morrisons. How to protect the taxpayer's position with parallel judicial review proceedings and statutory appeals.</p><p>38:30 <strong>Use of AI in writing judgments</strong> – How are the courts using AI?</p><p>40:45 <strong>Disclosure and the duty of candour </strong>– Do HMRC have a duty of candour before the FTT? Is it the same duty as in judicial review cases? Is it only HMRC who have a duty of candour in FTT cases?</p><p>43:40 <strong>Assessments, penalties and causation - </strong>Discussion of recent cases and principles laid down in Mainpay, Delphi and Boston Consulting Group.</p><p><u>Citations</u></p><p><strong>Cases</strong></p><p>Medpro Healthcare Ltd &amp; Ruppai v HMRC [2026] EWCA Civ 14, [2026] STC 253</p><p>Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)</p><p>Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 2 All ER 430</p><p>Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2015] 1 All ER 880</p><p>HMRC v McCarthy &amp; Stone [2014] UKUT 196 (TCC), [2014] STC 973</p><p>BPP Holdings Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKSC 55, [2017] 4 All ER 756</p><p>Perinpanathan v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2010] EWCA Civ 40, [2010] 1 WLR 1508</p><p>Competition &amp; Market Authority v Flynn Pharma Ltd [2022] UKSC 14, [2023] 1 All ER 97</p><p>Price and others v HMRC [2015] UKUT 164 (TCC)</p><p>Carbon Six Engineering Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 177 (TC)</p><p>HMRC v Sintra Global [2025] EWCA Civ 1661</p><p>Henryk Zeman SP Zoo v HMRC [2021] UKUT 182 (TCC), [2021] STC 1706</p><p>Treasures of Brazil v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 929</p><p>Caredav Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKUT 179 (TCC)</p><p>Chelsea Cloisters v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 205 (TC), [2025] SFTD 1105</p><p>Morrison Supermarkets v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC)</p><p>R (on the application of Archer) v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1962, [2018] STC 38</p><p>R (on the application of Weis) v HMRC [2025] EWHC 2479 (Admin), [2025] STC 1659</p><p>Cobalt Data Centre 2 LLP v HMRC [2019] UKUT 342 (TCC), [2020] STC 23</p><p>Evans v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 01112 (TC)</p><p>Jordi Carulla Font v HMRC [2025] EWHC 3057 (Admin), [2025] STC 1935</p><p>Nottingham Forest Football Club v HMRC [2024] UKUT 145, [2024] STC 1105</p><p>Delphi Derivatives v HMRC [2026] UKUT 21 (TCC), [2026] STC 292</p><p>O'Neil &amp; Ors v HMRC [2026] UKUT 13 (TCC), [2026] STC 199</p><p>Boston Consulting Group v HMRC [2026] UKUT 25 (TCC), [2026] STC 105</p><p>Lands Luo Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1207 (TC)</p><p>Jeneruhl Trading Ltd &amp; Another v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 735 (TC)</p><p><strong>Legislation</strong></p><p>CPR rule 3.9</p><p>Rule 28 procedure</p><p>s29 Taxes Management Act</p><p>s36 Taxes Management Act</p><p>Producer: Peter Shevlin</p><p>A <a href="https://pod60.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">pod60</a> production for <a href="https://www.pumptax.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Pump Court Tax Chambers</a></p>

Episode thumbnail for S2 Ep3: VAT: Classification or Characterisation of Complex Supplies

March 6, 2026

S2 Ep3: VAT: Classification or Characterisation of Complex Supplies

<p><a href="https://www.pumptax.com/barrister/laura-poots/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Laura Poots KC</a> and <a href="https://www.pumptax.com/barrister/thomas-chacko/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Thomas Chacko</a> consider classification and characterisation in VAT cases.</p><p>2:00 What is meant by classification and characterisation: when you have identified you have a single supply or a set of multiple supplies, what is that supply? And is the position completely clear following Gray &amp; Farrar?</p><p>2:50 The first step is identification of supply - to decide if you have a single or multiple supply - and then one looks at classification. Explanation of the two bases on which a single supply might be identified.</p><p>4:56 Is classification the final word on how the supply will be taxed?</p><p><strong>Case law and what are the tests?</strong></p><p>7:26 Card Protection Plan (CPP) Supplies – principal-ancillary supplies and how they are classified.</p><p>8:12 Levob Supplies - In classifying these, different courts have looked at "overarching" or "economic reality" test and the "predominant element" test.</p><p>10:45 Gray &amp; Farrar. Court of Appeal has now confirmed that there is a hierarchy of three tests (1) predominant element (2) principal-ancillary (3) overarching supply.</p><p>12:00 Predominance test: This is the primary test. Look at economic purpose and the typical customer (qualitative as well as quantitative).</p><p>13:55 Principal-ancillary test: a sense check on predominance, but also useful in working out the number of elements.</p><p>15:41 Overarching test: can assist in deciding predominance.</p><p>17:00 In applying these tests, how do you identify the elements of the supply?</p><p><strong>How does this all work in practice?</strong></p><p>19:56 HMRC don't seem to view Gray &amp; Farrar as settling the test in every case. What are HMRC's arguments and what are the problems with them?</p><p>21:05 HMRC argument 1: Individual elements cannot be singled out.</p><p>22:06 HMRC argument 2: subset of Levob supplies where no conceptual room for predominance test. HMRC's reliance on Blackrock and Deutsche Bank.</p><p>29:19 A practical example - Story Terrace. Court takes a lot of notice of contractual documentation and marketing descriptions. Potential relevance of online reviews. Demonstration of the importance of considering identification before classification.</p><p><strong>CITATIONS</strong></p><p>Blackrock Investment Management (UK) Ltd v HMRC [2020] STC 1445</p><p>Card Protection Plan Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (Case C-349/96) [1999] STC 270</p><p>Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Hochst v Deutsche Bank AG (C-44/11) [2012] STC 1951</p><p>HMRC v Gray &amp; Farrar International LLP [2023] STC 327</p><p>Levob Verzekeringen BV and another v Staatssecretaris van Financien (C-41/04) [2006] STC 766</p><p>Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové (C-18/12) [2014] STC 1703</p><p>Spectrum Community Health CIC v HMRC [2024] STC 1124</p><p>Story Terrace v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1554 (TC)</p><p>Target Group Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 226</p><p>Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (Case C-251/05) [2006] STC 1671</p><p>European Commission v France (Case C-94/09) [2012] STC 573</p><p>EC v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-274/15) [2017] ECR</p><p>Producer: Peter Shevlin</p><p>A <a href="https://pod60.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">pod60</a> production for <a href="https://www.pumptax.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Pump Court Tax Chambers</a></p>

14 total episodes available

Recent guests on Pump Court Tax Chat

Guests from recent episodes — sign up to see every guest that has ever appeared on this show.

David Ewart KC

Guest

Laura Ruxandu

Guest

See every guest on Pump Court Tax Chat

Deep-dive analytics for Pump Court Tax Chat

Sign up to explore

Frequently asked questions

Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.

What is Pump Court Tax Chat?

Pump Court Tax Chat brings you expert analysis of key, topical tax issues from the barristers from Pump Court Tax Chambers. Whether you are a tax professional, a solicitor, accountant or interested in tax law you are in the right place. As the UK’s leading tax chambers, our team of barristers dives deep into the latest tax news, key cases and important legislative updates. From the impact of major tax changes to practical advice for navigating HMRC enquiries, insights to keep you informed and ahead of the curve. Join us every month for discussions with top tax barristers covering everything from corporate tax to personal wealth tax issues. We will keep you up to date with the latest developments and ideas.

Presenter: Laura Poots Producer: Peter Shevlin A C60 Media production for Pump Court Tax Chambers https://www.pumptax.com/

How often does this podcast release new episodes?

This podcast updates daily.

Where can I listen to this podcast?

This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.

Does this podcast accept guests?

Yes, this podcast regularly features guests.

Legal Disclaimer

Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.

All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.

We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.

By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.