S222 ITEPA - final straw?!

[passerby]

Now that the gov explicitly stated that no income should be taxed twice, can we conclude that the threat of s222 is mute?

[webberg]

Now that the gov explicitly stated that no income should be taxed twice, can we conclude that the threat of s222 is mute?

No.

You need to hear and read the words of the minister with a high degree of pedantic definition.

"Income" has a long and often inconsistent definition in tax law. HMRC's argument is that loans are redirected income. Is that the same as "income" or not? It should be but I would not be at all surprised to see claims that it is not.

The claimed section 222 charge arises via the benefits code. This seeks to tax money or money's worth that is not an income as defined elsewhere. Here, the claim is that an employer has (or should have) paid YOUR tax and that is a benefit. The section seeks tax on this. Not a tax on income but tax on a benefit.

See the posts above from Iliketax. These are worth understanding.