CIS Appeals: Challenging Gross Payment Status, Deductions And Penalties

HMRC have decided to cancel your gross payment status. Once the cancellation takes effect, 20% of every invoice—or 30% if you have not been verified—is withheld at source and sent to HMRC instead of to you. That money is still yours, but you cannot touch it until the year-end set-off, and on tight margins that cashflow gap can close the business before any tribunal hears a word. An ordinary cancellation takes effect 90 days after HMRC's notice, and an appeal made within 30 days holds it off until the appeal ends.

Or the letter is the other way round: HMRC say you, the contractor, under-deducted and have raised a Regulation 13 determination, or refused you relief under Regulation 9. Or it is a stack of penalties for late monthly CIS300 returns that snowballed while your bureau or accountant went quiet. Or, under rules in force since 6 April 2026, HMRC say you knew or should have known that someone in the chain had failed to deduct the tax or was deliberately not paying it over, and want 20% of what you paid, or the CIS credit you claimed, plus a penalty.

Whichever letter you have, it gives you 30 days, and the clock started on the date of the decision, not the date you opened the envelope. What to do depends on which of three appellants you are.

On this page:

• The 30-Day Clock
• How CIS Works
• "It Will Ruin My Business"
• The Battlegrounds
• The April 2026 Rules
• Penalties
• How The Appeal Works
• Six Things To Do This Week

What HMRC's Letter Actually Means—And Which Of Three People You Are

The Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) is a self-contained regime in Part 3, Chapter 3 of the Finance Act 2004 and the Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2045), with its own appeal hooks. Which one applies depends on who you are:

• The subcontractor whose gross payment status was refused or cancelled. Gross payment status (GPS) lets contractors pay you in full, leaving you to account for your own tax later. Lose it—a refusal, or more painfully a cancellation under section 66 FA 2004—and every contractor must pay you under deduction. Your appeal hook is section 67 FA 2004, not the section 31 TMA 1970 appeal used for self-assessment, and a cancellation bars you from re-applying for at least a year.
• The contractor facing a Regulation 13 determination. HMRC say you failed to deduct CIS tax and have raised a determination under Regulation 13 of SI 2005/2045, with Regulation 9 as the possible escape.
• Anyone HMRC say knew, or should have known, about someone else's failure. Since 6 April 2026, a payer can be charged 20% of a payment (section 62A FA 2004) and a subcontractor the whole of a CIS credit it claimed (section 62B), plus a penalty (section 72A) that HMRC can pass on to company officers (section 72B). See the April 2026 rules below.

Any of the three may argue that CIS does not apply at all: is the work a "construction operation" within section 74 FA 2004, or were the workers employees, so PAYE, not CIS, applied? That is the most fact-sensitive part of the regime.

The 30-Day Clock (A Different Hook For Each Notice)

Every route has a 30-day deadline, but where the appeal goes differs:

• GPS refusal or cancellation (under section 66(1), (3) or (3A)): notice of appeal to HMRC within 30 days of the refusal or cancellation, giving your reasons (s.67(2)-(3) FA 2004).
• Regulation 9 refusal notice: notice to an officer within 30 days, specifying the grounds (reg 9(7)).
• Regulation 13 or Regulation 13A determination: each is treated as an assessment (reg 13(5); reg 13A(4)), so notice of appeal goes to the HMRC officer who made it, not to the tribunal, within 30 days of its date, stating your grounds (s.31A TMA 1970).
• Penalty (Schedule 55 for a late CIS300, Schedule 24, or section 72A): appealed like an assessment. Write to the HMRC officer who issued it within 30 days of the date of the penalty notice, saying that you appeal and why (for section 72A, section 100B TMA 1970).
• Section 72B decision notice: write to HMRC within 30 days beginning with the day the notice was given, stating the ground of appeal (section 72C(2) FA 2004).

Miss a deadline and you must first write to HMRC and ask them to accept a late appeal (section 49 TMA 1970), explaining your reasonable excuse and that you acted without unreasonable delay once it ended. Only if they refuse do you ask the tribunal for permission, which it does not grant routinely: the test is the three-stage Martland framework (see late appeal to the tax tribunal and Martland v HMRC).

How CIS Actually Works (And Why The Numbers Hurt)

Under section 61 FA 2004, a contractor must deduct "the relevant percentage" from a contract payment, excluding the part representing the direct cost of materials: 0% with gross payment status; 20% if registered and verified but not gross; 30% if not registered or not verified.

To hold gross payment status, Schedule 11 FA 2004 sets three tests, applied by appellant type (individuals, firms, companies):

• The business test: you carry on (or are about to carry on) a UK construction business, run mainly through a bank account.
• The turnover test: net construction turnover at or above £30,000 per relevant person, or an alternative aggregate threshold of £100,000 for firms and companies (SI 2005/2045 reg 28(2)/(3)).
• The compliance test: you complied, in the 12 months reviewed, with your CIS, PAYE, self-assessment, corporation tax and VAT obligations. Prescribed minor failures are disregarded, and a failure for which there was a reasonable excuse (the obligation then met without unreasonable delay) is treated as compliance.

HMRC re-run the compliance test in an annual review, the automated Tax Treatment Qualification Test, and a run of late PAYE or CIS payments caught by it is the most common cancellation trigger.

Contractors, meanwhile, must file a monthly CIS300 "not later than 14 days after the end of every tax month" (SI 2005/2045 reg 4(1)(a)); the month ends on the 5th, so the deadline is the 19th of the month. Since 6 April 2026, a contractor whose business includes construction and which has paid subcontractors before must also file a nil return for a month with no payments, unless it told HMRC, not later than 14 days before the month began, that it would make none (reg 4(9A)-(9B), inserted by SI 2026/289).

The cashflow worked example (illustrative). At a 20% deduction, £200,000 of labour a year puts £40,000 with HMRC months before the year-end set-off. Winning the appeal restores the status, not that float, which comes back only through the set-off: a sole trader sets the deductions against the income tax and Class 4 NIC on the self-assessment return and is repaid any excess; a company sets them against its PAYE and CIS liabilities or reclaims the balance after the tax year.

"But Losing Gross Status Will Ruin My Business"

Why Business Impact Does Not Count (J P Whitter)

Numbers in square brackets, like [4], are paragraph numbers in the decision cited, so you can find the passage and refer to it in your own appeal.

In J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKSC 31, a family water-well engineering business with around 25 employees had its gross payment status revoked in 2011 for a history of late PAYE without reasonable excuse. As the Supreme Court summarised the First-tier Tribunal's findings (at [4]), cancellation "would have been likely to lead to the loss of around 60% of the company's turnover, and the dismissal of about 80% of its employees, and that recovery would be expected to take about ten years"—and HMRC had taken no account of that.

That argument still lost. Lord Carnwath held, at [21], that "any statutory discretion must be exercised consistently with the objects and scope of the statutory scheme"—and, at [22], that he could not read the section 66 power "as extending to matters 'which do not relate, directly or indirectly, to the requirements for registration for gross payment, and to the objective of securing compliance with those requirements'." In the Court of Appeal below (J P Whitter (CoA) [2016] EWCA Civ 1160, para 60), Henderson LJ had already held that the financial impact of cancellation "would fall well outside the intended scope of the power".

On Article 1 of Protocol 1 (the human-rights protection of property), Lord Carnwath saw "force in" HMRC's submission that, even if rights conferred by registration are "possessions", "they cannot extend beyond the limits set by the legislation by which they are created". But he found it "unnecessary to rest [his] decision on that point": any interference was proportionate (at [23]). The appeal was dismissed.

What The Tribunal Actually Decides—And When (RMF Construction)

The tribunal hears the GPS appeal afresh, but the question is whether HMRC's decision was correctly reached on the circumstances as they stood at the date HMRC made it. In HMRC v RMF Construction Services Ltd [2022] UKUT 67 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal held the tribunal has no power to take subsequent changes into account—cleaning up your compliance after the decision does not rescue the appeal.

John Kerr Roofing Contractors v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 135 (TC) confirmed the FTT has jurisdiction under s.67(4) FA 2004 to review HMRC's section 66 discretion (its impact-based ground is now bad law after J P Whitter). A GPS refusal or cancellation is a status decision, not a "deemed correct unless displaced" assessment, but you must establish any reasonable excuse.

The Battlegrounds

Match the wording of HMRC's notice to its battleground:

The Compliance, Business And Turnover Tests [Subcontractor]

Most GPS cancellations are fought on the compliance test, where three arguments are genuinely winnable: that the failure did not occur, or fell within the disregarded-minor category; that you had a reasonable excuse (Sch 11 para 4(4) for individuals, 8(3) for firms, 12(3) for companies), which runs on the four-step framework in what is a reasonable excuse? and Perrin v HMRC; or that HMRC got the facts or figures wrong.

The section 66 power is also discretionary: in Scofield v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 199 (TC), the tribunal held "may" in section 66 confers a discretion HMRC must exercise properly, so a compliance failure does not automatically end gross status. Connaught Contracts (Bennett) v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 545 (TC) is another compliance-test and reasonable-excuse example; Bruns (t/a TK Fabrications) v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 58 (TC) and Wood (t/a Propave) v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 136 (TC) illustrate the reasonable-excuse limb—but both predate J P Whitter, so cite them only for the reasonable-excuse point, not the business-impact reasoning that no longer survives.

The business and turnover tests, by contrast, are arithmetical: was there a genuine UK construction business run through a bank account, and did net construction turnover reach the £30,000 / £100,000 thresholds? Check how HMRC computed turnover before assuming the test is failed.

Regulation 13 And The Regulation 9 Escape [Contractor]

A Regulation 13 determination quantifies, on the officer's best judgment, what the contractor should have deducted. Because it is treated as an assessment, it stands under section 50(6) TMA 1970 unless you show you were overcharged.

The escape is Regulation 9. Condition A (reg 9(3)) is about your conduct, and the burden is on you: you satisfy an officer that you took reasonable care to comply with section 61 and the Regulations, and the failure to deduct was either an error in good faith or a genuine belief that section 61 did not apply. Condition B (reg 9(4)) is about the subcontractor: the officer is satisfied the payee was not chargeable on the payments, or returned them and paid the tax and Class 4 NIC (or corporation tax) due—and you request a direction.

A refused Condition A direction comes as a reg 9(6) refusal notice, appealable under reg 9(7) within 30 days on the reg 9(8) grounds (which mirror Condition A); if the tribunal considers the refusal notice should not have been issued, it can direct an officer to make the reg 9(5) direction (reg 9(9)).

Condition B is operated on a contractor request, so your leverage is documentary evidence of the subcontractor's return and payment. If HMRC refuse a Condition B request, there is no tribunal appeal: the challenge is judicial review in the High Court, brought promptly and within three months, the route the contractors took in R (Beech Developments (Manchester) Ltd) v HMRC [2024] EWCA Civ 486. The same case settles the timing: HMRC can still make a Regulation 9 direction after a Regulation 13 determination, as long as the determination can still be adjusted—for example, while your appeal against it is open. Once the determination is final, it is too late.

If you are the subcontractor in someone else's Regulation 13 fight [Subcontractor]. A Regulation 13 determination is the contractor's liability, not yours, but your returns are decisive to its Condition B escape: evidence that you returned those payments and paid what was due on them unlocks the direction and stops HMRC collecting the same tax twice, so keep it to hand. And since 6 April 2026, if you claimed a CIS credit for a deduction you knew, or should have known, was never made, or had deliberately not been, or would deliberately not be, paid over, section 62B lets HMRC come after you directly (below).

Knew Or Should Have Known: The April 2026 Rules [All]

Since 6 April 2026 (Finance Act 2026, sections 220 to 222), you can be liable for what you knew, or should have known, about someone else's failure, even if you did nothing deliberately wrong yourself. As at October 2026, no tribunal has decided a case under these rules. You may receive:

• A determination for 20% of a payment you made (section 62A FA 2004), if before paying under a construction contract you "knew or should have known" that a connected party (another party to that contract, or to another contract for the same work) "had deliberately failed, or would deliberately fail" to deduct or pay over CIS tax or PAYE.
• A determination for the whole of a CIS credit you claimed (section 62B FA 2004), if before making the return you knew or should have known the sum "had not been deducted", or had deliberately not been, or would deliberately not be, paid over. On the first limb, no one need have acted deliberately.
• A penalty of up to 30% of the amount determined (section 72A FA 2004), with no reasonable-excuse defence in the Act: the fight is whether section 62A or 62B applied, and the amount. HMRC's guidance gives no reduction for "should have known" rather than actual knowledge, and none for disclosure if you dispute the determination (CISR85140); on appeal the tribunal can set the penalty aside, reduce it, or increase it up to the maximum (section 100B(2)(b) TMA 1970).
• A "decision notice" making a company officer pay part or all of the company's penalty (section 72B FA 2004), where the company's actions were "attributable to" that officer: a director (including a shadow director), manager, company secretary, or the equivalent in an LLP or unincorporated association. HMRC must first warn you and invite representations. Your share is due within 30 days; whether HMRC hold it back during an appeal is not settled, so ask them in writing. Your appeal can argue that the company was not liable to the penalty (section 72C(1)); see personal liability notices.
• An immediate GPS cancellation (section 66(3A)) if section 62A or 62B applies to you. Unlike section 66(3), the words need no "reasonable grounds to suspect": section 62A or 62B must actually apply.

Both determinations come as a notice under Regulation 13A of SI 2005/2045 (inserted by section 221 FA 2026), treated as an assessment. HMRC aim to send the penalty at the same time (CISR85130), so one investigation can bring several notices, each needing its own appeal. HMRC say the penalty applies to payments made or credits claimed after 6 April 2026 (CISR85120); whether a determination can reach earlier ones is not settled.

HMRC's guidance calls the knowledge test "an objective test" (CISR85060) and lists warning signs, such as prices "below realistic labour costs" (CISR85030), but accepts that "Lack of due diligence alone is unlikely to provide sufficient evidence", and that someone who "has genuinely done everything they can to check the integrity of the supply chain, can demonstrate they have done so" and heeded the warnings, with no other reason to suspect the tax would go unpaid, is unlikely to meet the test (CISR85080).

On a section 62A or 62B determination, who must prove what you knew is not settled: on its face section 50(6) TMA 1970 puts the burden on you, but HMRC's own guidance says HMRC "would look to show" it (CISR85060).

Construction Operations And Employment Status [All]

Section 74(2) includes construction, alteration, repair, extension or demolition of buildings, structures and works to the land, installing heating, lighting, water and drainage, site cleaning during construction, and painting and decorating. Section 74(3) excludes, among other things, off-site manufacture and delivery of components, architects' and surveyors' professional work, wholly artistic works, signwriting, and installing blinds, shutters and security systems such as CCTV. Mixed contracts and manufacture-then-install arrangements are the classic flashpoints.

If HMRC decide your "subcontractors" were really employees, the result is a PAYE/NIC determination and a separate appeal, though it can run alongside a GPS or Regulation 13 dispute. The test is the same multi-factor employment test as IR35, covered in IR35 and off-payroll appeals and PGMOL v HMRC.

Penalties: Late CIS300 Returns And Inaccuracies

Late monthly returns are penalised under Schedule 55 FA 2009, on the CIS row (separate from the self-assessment rows):

• £100: initial fixed penalty when the CIS300 is not filed by the deadline.
• £200: a further fixed penalty when it is still outstanding two months after the penalty date.
• £300 (or 5% of the deductions, if higher): at 6 months, and again at 12 months, when higher tax-geared figures apply if information was withheld deliberately.

These compound fast—a contractor who files nothing for months faces four-figure penalties on one return cycle. There is statutory relief for a brand-new contractor: Schedule 55 FA 2009, para 13(2)(b) caps the aggregate of the fixed penalties under paragraphs 8 and 9 (the £100 and £200 elements) at £3,000 for the CIS300 returns required up to and including the contractor's first return. For those same returns the £300 minimum at 6 and 12 months doesn't apply either (para 13(2)(a)), so unless information was withheld deliberately, only the 5% figure can be charged.

HMRC must first establish that a penalty is due; only then does the burden move to you, on reasonable excuse or special circumstances. The reasonable-excuse defence in Sch 55 para 23 applies to all of these late-filing penalties, on the same four-step Perrin framework—see self-assessment penalties, HMRC penalties explained and the new penalty regime.

Check which months the penalties cover. From April 2015 until 6 April 2026 no return was due for a month in which you paid no subcontractors (SI 2015/429 removed the nil-return rule that SI 2026/289 has now restored), so a late-filing penalty for such a month can be challenged on that ground.

Beyond late filing, an inaccurate CIS return or under-deduction can attract a behaviour-based penalty under Schedule 24 FA 2007, and the company or contractor can be liable even where a payroll bureau or adviser did the work.

If Your Bureau Or Accountant Has Gone Quiet

If the bureau or accountant filing your CIS300s went quiet while the penalties stacked up, rebuild the filing history from HMRC's own record; the R&D, BADR and EIS/SEIS guides deal with the same problem. Whether relying on a non-responsive agent is a reasonable excuse is fact-specific: the tribunal looks at what you did, not just the adviser. A professional-negligence claim against the adviser runs on its own clock under the Limitation Act 1980 (broadly six years from the damage under section 2, with a latent-damage extension under section 14A), independently of the tax appeal: raise it with a solicitor early.

How The Appeal Works

What an appeal does to a GPS cancellation depends on the power HMRC used:

After the written appeal, every route follows the same spine: a free HMRC internal review by a different officer, or notifying the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal directly. If HMRC offer a review, you have 30 days from the date of their letter to accept it or to notify the tribunal; do neither and HMRC's view is treated as an agreement that settles your appeal. That leaves only a late review, which HMRC's guidance says they must accept if you had a reasonable excuse and asked without unreasonable delay once it ended (ARTG4300), or the tribunal's permission. After a review, you have 30 days from the date of the conclusion letter to go to the tribunal. See how to appeal to the tax tribunal, tribunal tracks and costs and the tax dispute timeline.

The critical caveat on money: the section 67(5) freeze keeps you paid gross only after an ordinary section 66(1) cancellation appealed in time. After a refusal, or an immediate cancellation under section 66(3) or (3A), the 20%/30% deductions run while you appeal, and winning does not refund them early: they come back only through the set-off described in the worked example above.

A Regulation 13 or 13A determination is due 14 days after it is made, appeal or not. You can apply to HMRC in writing to postpone the amount you dispute under section 55 TMA 1970, within 30 days of the date of the determination, saying how much you think you've been overcharged and why, and refer a refusal to the tribunal within 30 days of HMRC's decision. But whether section 55 applies is not settled: HMRC's manual says it does not apply to Regulation 13 determinations (CISR82120), yet their guidance on Regulation 13A, which uses the same words, says the 14-day rule "does not remove the ability to request postponement of the tax on appeal" (CISR85110).

Postponement pauses collection, not interest: HMRC's manual says interest is charged on a Regulation 13 sum (CISR82150), so expect it on any amount you turn out to owe; whether interest runs on a section 62A or 62B amount is not settled, so check the notice. A penalty has no statutory postponement, but HMRC's policy is to stand it over while it is under appeal (ARTG2510); ask them to confirm that in writing. See postponing payment during appeal and interest on unpaid tax.

Six Things To Do This Week

1. Work out which appellant you are. GPS subcontractor, Regulation 13/Regulation 9 contractor, or someone facing the April 2026 rules. The legislative reference on the letter decides it.
2. Diarise the 30-day deadline from the decision date, not the date you opened the letter—and note the hook (s.67, reg 9(7), the TMA route for a reg 13 or 13A determination, s.72C for a decision notice, or a penalty appeal to HMRC).
3. File a protective written appeal now. A short written appeal stops the clock, but it must state your grounds, even briefly; you can expand on them later. For an ordinary GPS cancellation under section 66(1), this also engages the section 67(5) freeze on your status.
4. Plan for the cashflow gap as a fact. Section 67(5) and section 55 postponement pause outflows; neither refunds the withheld float. Build the gap into your forecasts.
5. Gather the evidence that goes to HMRC's actual battleground: your compliance history for the period reviewed (CIS300s, PAYE/RTI, self-assessment or corporation tax, VAT, payment dates) and what went wrong and when, for a reasonable excuse; verification records, deduction statements and contracts for a Regulation 13 fight; your supply-chain checks, and when you made them, for the April 2026 rules. For GPS, focus on the position at the decision date, because later good behaviour will not turn the appeal.
6. Get independent advice with no stake in the outcome. A Chartered Tax Adviser via CIOT's member directory, a chartered accountant via ICAEW's directory, or a specialist tax barrister via the Bar's Public Access Scheme. If cost is the barrier, the charity TaxAid gives free tax advice to those who cannot afford a professional (since July 2025 it includes the former Tax Help for Older People), and Advocate can find free barrister help. See writing grounds of appeal before you draft.

Key Legislation And Resources

Legislation

• Finance Act 2004, Part 3, Chapter 3 — the Construction Industry Scheme (ss.57-77)
• Section 61, FA 2004 — deductions on account of tax from contract payments
• Sections 62A to 62C, FA 2004 — liability for payments and returns made in the knowledge of deliberate failures to comply (from 6 April 2026)
• Section 66, FA 2004 — cancellation of registration for gross payment (including the immediate (3A) cancellation and the re-application bars)
• Section 67, FA 2004 — registration for gross payment: appeals (including the s.67(5) freeze)
• Sections 72A to 72C, FA 2004 — the section 72A penalty, officers' decision notices (s.72B) and their appeal (s.72C)
• Section 74, FA 2004 — meaning of "construction operations"
• Schedule 11, FA 2004 — conditions for registration for gross payment (business / turnover / compliance tests)
• Finance Act 2026, sections 220 to 222 — the 2026 CIS amendments; section 221 inserts Regulation 13A into SI 2005/2045, and section 222 sets commencement
• SI 2005/2045 — esp. reg 4 (monthly return), reg 9 (recovery from subcontractor; Conditions A & B; refusal-notice appeal), reg 13 (determination; TMA Parts 4-6 imported), reg 28 (minimum turnover £30,000 / aggregate £100,000, the aggregate as amended by SI 2016/348). legislation.gov.uk's consolidated text does not yet show that amendment, Regulation 13A or the 2026 nil-return rule.
• SI 2026/289 — nil returns from 6 April 2026 (reg 4(9A)-(9B)); SI 2015/429 removed the earlier nil-return rule from April 2015
• Schedule 55, FA 2009 — late CIS300 penalties
• Schedule 24, FA 2007 — inaccuracy penalties
• TMA 1970 — esp. s.50 (burden) and s.55 (postponement, which HMRC say does not reach a Regulation 13 determination), as applied to Regulation 13 and 13A determinations by reg 13(5) and reg 13A(4), and s.100B (appeals against penalty determinations, including the section 72A penalty)
• Limitation Act 1980 — negligence claim against an adviser (signpost only)

Key Cases

• J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKSC 31 — HMRC need not weigh the business impact of cancelling GPS under s.66; the s.66 discretion is bounded by the objects and scope of the statutory scheme; A1P1/proportionality argument rejected. (Procedural history, all stages linked: FTT J P Whitter (FTT) [2012] UKFTT 639 (TC), where the taxpayer won; UT J P Whitter (UT) [2015] UKUT 392 (TCC); CoA J P Whitter (CoA) [2016] EWCA Civ 1160.)
• The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v RMF Construction Services Ltd [2022] UKUT 67 (TCC) — a GPS appeal is judged on the circumstances as at the date HMRC made their decision; the FTT cannot take subsequent changes into account.
• Scofield v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 199 (TC) — "may" in s.66 confers a discretion HMRC must exercise properly.
• Bruns (t/a TK Fabrications) v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 58 (TC) — reasonable excuse to the compliance test (business-impact reasoning superseded by J P Whitter; cite only for the reasonable-excuse point).
• Wood (t/a Propave) v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 136 (TC) — reasonable excuse, Sch 11 para 4(4) (same J P Whitter caveat).
• John Kerr Roofing Contractors v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 135 (TC) — FTT jurisdiction under s.67(4) FA 2004 (impact ground now bad law post-J P Whitter).
• Connaught Contracts (Bennett) v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 545 (TC) — CIS GPS reasonable excuse / compliance test.
• R (Beech Developments (Manchester) Ltd) v HMRC [2024] EWCA Civ 486 — HMRC can make a Regulation 9 direction for an amount already determined under Regulation 13, provided the determination can still be adjusted; on judicial review, HMRC's decision not to consider a Condition B claim was quashed.
• Employment-status overlap: see PGMOL v HMRC [2024] UKSC 29 and IR35 and off-payroll appeals (Ready Mixed Concrete, Hall v Lorimer [1993] EWCA Civ 25).

HMRC Guidance

• CIS 340 — Construction Industry Scheme: a guide for contractors and subcontractors
• HMRC Construction Industry Scheme Reform manual (CISR) — esp. the GPS cancellation, appeals and scheduled-review (TTQT) series
• CISR85000: CIS fraud measures — HMRC's guidance on sections 62A, 62B, 66(3A) and 72A to 72C
• CC/FS96: penalties for CIS payments or returns connected to deliberate non-compliance — HMRC's factsheet on the section 72A penalty and officers' liability
• Tax and Chancery Tribunal decisions — Upper Tribunal, official

On This Site

• IR35 and off-payroll appeals — the CIS-vs-employee status overlap
• PGMOL v HMRC: employment status — the multi-factor employment test
• Ready Mixed Concrete: the three conditions — the common-law test for whether you are employed or self-employed
• Express & Echo v Tanton — when a genuine, unfettered right to send a substitute means you are not an employee
• Hall v Lorimer: painting the whole picture — whether you are in business on your own account
• What is a reasonable excuse? — the general framework
• Perrin v HMRC — the four-step reasonable excuse test
• HMRC penalties explained — Schedule 24 and the penalty framework
• Self-assessment penalties — Schedule 55 penalty mechanics
• New penalty regime — the FA 2021 points-based and percentage penalties
• Personal liability notices — section 72B decision notices and the other ways HMRC make a director pay
• Postponing payment during appeal — section 55 TMA on a disputed determination
• Interest on unpaid tax — how late-payment interest works
• How to appeal to the tax tribunal — step-by-step filing
• HMRC internal review — the free review step before the tribunal
• Writing grounds of appeal — drafting s.67 / reg 9 / reg 13 grounds
• Late appeal to the tax tribunal — if the 30-day window slipped
• Martland v HMRC: late appeals — the three-stage late-appeal test
• Tribunal tracks and costs — case categories and costs risk
• Tax dispute timeline — where CIS appeals sit in the broader journey
• R&D tax credit appeals · BADR appeals · EIS/SEIS relief appeals — the adviser-gone-quiet cluster pattern

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. For advice specific to your situation, consult a qualified tax adviser, accountant, or solicitor.