Notices of decision: Who to name in decisions: Not possible to name all affected persons
Regulation 3 of the Social Security Contributions (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 1027)
Regulation 3 of the Social Security Contributions (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 requires that a decision must state the name of every person in respect of whom it is made.
In some situations it may not be possible to name all affected persons in a decision.
Representative sample not agreed
Where it has not been possible to agree a representative sample, in accordance with DANSP41500, for example, where an employer refuses to furnish information that enables us to name employees and
- you have either been unable to use your powers to get the information, or
- the use of your powers have failed to illicit the required information, and
- the employer will not agree a representative sample of employees where more than six are involved.
In these circumstances, try to identify those affected in your decision. For example
- ‘management consultants’,
- ‘all bricklayers working at your site in Coventry’,
- ‘all employees and directors who received gains in the form of shares issued under the company’s senior executive incentive plan’.
Before the decision is issued, contact Simon Clark (PTCPP Technical Team) to obtain further advice about naming those affected. You must also include a copy of the following information
- the Schedule 36 Information Notice; and
- the Reg80 Sec8 Submission Stencil and decision letter.
It is important that when you issue a decision you explain in a covering letter precisely which workers are covered by the decision and why you have not named the workers.
Westek Ltd v HMRC Commissioners
In Westek Ltd v HMRC Commissioners (SpC 629), the Special Commissioners concluded that a Class 1 National Insurance contributions (NIC) liability decision issued by HMRC in which
- the person liable to pay was named, i.e. the employer,
- the directors, in respect of whose earnings Class 1 NIC were due, were not named,
was entirely consistent with the requirements of regulation 3. See DANSP41300 for more information about the Westek case.