Not a pool car

The taxpayer was an employee shareholder and director of a company that had ceased trading. His wife was also a director and employee. He had occasional use of a Porsche 911 which he claimed was a pool vehicle within the meaning of ITEPA 2003 s 167.

HMRC refuted the claim and said the taxpayer was liable to car and car fuel benefits in respect of his use.

The taxpayer appealed.

The First-tier Tribunal said the burden of proof lay with the taxpayer to establish that the Porsche was a pool car. This did not include as argued by the Revenue a company policy forbidding the use of the vehicle for private purposes. Section 167(3)(d) specifically permitted a degree of private use provided it was incidental.

There was no evidence to show the taxpayer and his wife both used the car in the same...