Section 61 — Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003: Interpretation
Text of the provision Official document
Interpretation 61 1 In this Chapter— “ associate ” has the meaning given by section 60; “ associated company ” has the meaning given by section 449 of CTA 2010 ; “ business ” means any trade, profession or vocation and includes a UK property business within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of ITTOIA 2005 or Chapter 2 of Part 4 of CTA 2009 ; “ company ” (except in sections 60A to 60G) means a body corporate or unincorporated association, and does not include a partnership; “ employer’s national insurance contributions ” means secondary Class 1 or Class 1A national insurance contributions; “ engagement to which Chapter 10 applies ” has the meaning given by section 61M(5); “ engagement to which this Chapter applies ” has the meaning given by section 49(5); “ national insurance contributions ” means contributions under Part 1 of SSCBA 1992 or Part 1 of SSCB( NI )A 1992; “ PAYE provisions ” means the provisions of Part 11 or PAYE regulations; “ the relevant engagements ” has the meaning given by section 50(4).
2 References in this Chapter to payments or benefits received or receivable from a partnership or unincorporated association include payments or benefits to which a person is or may be entitled in the person’s capacity as a member of the partnership or association.
3 For the purposes of this Chapter—
a anything done by or in relation to an associate of an intermediary is treated as done by or in relation to the intermediary, and b a payment or other benefit provided to a member of an individual’s family or household is treated as provided to the individual.
4 For the purposes of this Chapter, two people living together as if they were a married couple or civil partners are treated as if they were married to, or civil partners of, each other.
Official source: legislation.gov.uk
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from UK courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →