Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Salary Sacrifice Schemes for Legal Services: Feasibility Study and Tax Implications

· 21 min

Executive Summary

From April 2027, most unused pension funds will enter the inheritance tax estate, creating significant employee demand for will writing and estate planning services. Benefits managers face a natural question: can these legal services be delivered tax-efficiently through salary sacrifice? This article conducts a systematic feasibility analysis grounded in the Optional Remuneration Arrangements rules under ITEPA 2003 ss.69A and 228A. The conclusion is definitive: legal services fall outside every exempt benefit category, and the "higher of" test under s.203A eliminates salary sacrifice's tax advantage for this benefit type. The article maps five alternative delivery models -- employer-funded benefit in kind, voluntary payroll deduction, Employee Assistance Programme welfare counselling, trivial benefits, and a hybrid structure -- evaluating each against tax treatment, National Minimum Wage compliance, and the mandatory payrolling requirements commencing April 2027.

The inclusion of unused pension funds within the inheritance tax (IHT) estate from April 2027 represents a fundamental shift in estate planning for employed individuals.1 Under the forthcoming rules, most defined contribution pension death benefits -- previously outside the IHT net -- will be aggregated with the deceased member's estate, with combined IHT and income tax exposure potentially exceeding 60% for non-exempt beneficiaries.12 Death-in-service benefits paid from registered pension schemes are excluded, and transfers to surviving spouses or civil partners remain exempt under the existing spousal exemption, but the change nonetheless affects millions of pension savers.2

This legislative development creates a compelling strategic case for employers to incorporate legal services -- will writing, lasting powers of attorney, pension nomination strategy, and estate planning consultation -- into financial wellbeing programmes. The CIPD's most recently published Reward Management Survey (2022, the 18th edition) found that 25% of employees report money worries affect their ability to perform their role, yet only 20% report that their employer maintains a financial wellbeing policy.3 The disconnect is significant: 65% of employees state that a financial wellbeing policy is important in their choice of future employer, and those covered by such a policy are more than twice as likely to express satisfaction with their benefits package (70% versus 28%).34 No subsequent full Reward Management Survey has been published as of February 2026, though the directional findings remain consistent with CIPD's 2024 Pay, Performance and Transparency report.

The employer cost environment amplifies the urgency. From 6 April 2025, employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) increased from 13.8% to 15%, with the secondary threshold reduced from GBP 9,100 to GBP 5,000.56 The Employment Allowance rose to GBP 10,500, partially offsetting the impact for smaller employers, but for the average employee earning GBP 36,036, employer NIC increased approximately 25%.5 Broadstone research indicates that 43% of employers that changed their benefits package in response to the Autumn 2024 Budget introduced salary sacrifice schemes.7 The instinct to extend salary sacrifice to emerging benefit categories -- including legal services -- is therefore understandable. Whether it is feasible under current legislation is the question this article addresses.

2. The Optional Remuneration Arrangements Framework

2.1 Defining Optional Remuneration Arrangements

Section 69A of ITEPA 2003, inserted by Finance Act 2017, Schedule 2, defines optional remuneration arrangements (OpRA) in two categories.89 A Type A arrangement exists where an employee gives up the right to receive an amount of earnings in return for a benefit in kind. A Type B arrangement exists where an employee agrees to receive a benefit in kind rather than an amount of earnings. Salary sacrifice is the archetypal Type A arrangement: the employee accepts a permanent reduction in contractual pay, and the employer provides the benefit from the foregone salary.

2.2 The Disapplication of Exemptions Under Section 228A

Section 228A provides that where a benefit would otherwise be exempt from income tax under Part 4 of ITEPA 2003, the exemption is disapplied if the benefit is provided through an OpRA -- unless the exemption falls within the categories of "excluded exemptions" or "special case exemptions."1011 This is the critical gateway provision. Benefits that retain their exemption under salary sacrifice are explicitly listed; those not listed lose their tax-free status.

2.3 Excluded Exemptions: Key Categories

The following benefits are classified as excluded exemptions under s.228A and retain full tax advantage when provided through salary sacrifice. The key categories relevant to benefits strategy are:1213

  • Employer contributions to registered pension schemes (ITEPA 2003 s.308)
  • Employer contributions to overseas pension schemes (s.308A)
  • Employer-provided pensions advice (s.308C -- capped at GBP 500 per tax year)
  • Workplace nurseries and other employer-provided childcare (s.318, s.318A)
  • Cycles and cyclist's safety equipment (s.244); non-cash vouchers for cycles (s.266(2)(c))
  • Childcare vouchers (s.270A -- arrangements commenced on or before 4 October 2018)
  • Payments connected with taxable cars, vans, and heavy goods vehicles (s.239)
  • Counselling and outplacement services (s.310)
  • Retraining courses (s.311)
  • Statutory redundancy payments (s.309)

The GOV.UK OpRA guidance provides the full list of excluded exemptions under s.228A.13 Ultra-low emission vehicles (CO2 emissions 75g/km or less) also retain favourable treatment under salary sacrifice, but through a distinct mechanism: s.120A ITEPA 2003 disapplies the OpRA rules entirely for such vehicles, meaning standard benefit in kind rules apply rather than the OpRA framework. This is a disapplication of OpRA rather than an excluded exemption under s.228A.13

Legal services -- will writing, estate planning, lasting powers of attorney, general legal expenses cover -- do not appear in any excluded exemption category.13 This is not an oversight; the legislative design explicitly restricts salary sacrifice tax advantages to the enumerated categories.

2.4 Special Case Exemptions

Seven exemptions are classified as "special case" under s.228A, meaning their pre-existing salary sacrifice rules are applied before the OpRA framework:11

  1. s.289A -- Paid or reimbursed expenses
  2. s.289D -- Other benefits
  3. s.308B -- Independent advice on pension conversions and transfers
  4. s.312A -- Qualifying bonus payments
  5. s.317 -- Subsidised meals
  6. s.320C -- Recommended medical treatment
  7. s.323A -- Trivial benefits

Legal services are not covered by any special case exemption. The trivial benefits exemption under s.323A warrants specific consideration (addressed in Section 3.4 below), but its GBP 50 cap and prohibition on salary sacrifice delivery render it impractical for substantive legal services.14

2.5 The "Higher Of" Test: A Worked Example

When a non-exempt benefit is provided through an OpRA, section 203A of ITEPA 2003 (inserted by Finance Act 2017, Schedule 2) requires determination of the taxable amount by comparing the cost of the benefit against the amount of salary forgone.131516 If the amount forgone exceeds the cash equivalent calculated under ss.203-204, the taxable amount is the amount forgone (less any amount made good by the employee). This "higher of" test produces outcomes that are potentially worse for the employee than straightforward employer-funded provision.

Worked example: An employer arranges will writing and estate planning services for an employee through a salary sacrifice arrangement. The employee sacrifices GBP 300 of annual salary. The employer negotiates a group rate, paying GBP 250 to the legal services provider. Under the s.203A comparison, the taxable amount is GBP 300 (the salary forgone), not GBP 250 (the cost to the employer under s.204). The employee pays income tax on GBP 300, which exceeds the economic value of the benefit received.1316 Had the employer simply funded the benefit without salary sacrifice, the taxable benefit in kind would have been GBP 250 -- the cost to the employer under s.204.

The conclusion is unambiguous: salary sacrifice for legal services is technically possible but provides no tax advantage and may increase the employee's tax liability relative to alternative delivery models.

3. Alternative Delivery Models: A Comparative Analysis

Given the structural unsuitability of salary sacrifice, benefits managers require a systematic assessment of alternative models for delivering legal services to employees.

3.1 Model A: Employer-Funded Benefit in Kind

Under this model, the employer pays the legal services provider directly on behalf of employees. The service constitutes a taxable benefit in kind under ITEPA 2003 ss.201-205, with the cash equivalent determined by the cost to the employer (s.204).1517 Class 1A NIC at 15% applies to the employer from April 2025.5

From April 2027, this benefit must be reported through payroll in real time under the mandatory payrolling regime, replacing P11D reporting.18 Class 1A NIC will be payable through payroll each pay period rather than annually. The model is transparent, straightforward to administer, and produces a known tax cost. For an employer paying GBP 250 per employee for will writing services, the employee bears income tax on GBP 250 (GBP 50 at basic rate, GBP 100 at higher rate), while the employer bears GBP 37.50 in Class 1A NIC.

3.2 Model B: Voluntary Payroll Deduction

Voluntary payroll deduction is materially distinct from salary sacrifice.19 Under this model, the employee elects to have a deduction taken from net pay -- there is no variation to the employment contract, no reduction in contractual salary, and no creation of an OpRA. The employer facilitates payment to the legal services provider through payroll infrastructure, potentially at a negotiated group rate.

The model offers administrative convenience for employees and enables the employer to negotiate preferential pricing through bulk arrangements. It creates no NMW compliance risk because contractual pay is unaffected.19 The trade-off is that the employee receives no tax advantage: the deduction is from post-tax income. For employers seeking a low-risk, low-cost mechanism to connect employees with legal services, voluntary payroll deduction represents the most straightforward route.

3.3 Model C: Employee Assistance Programme Welfare Counselling

The welfare counselling exemption at EIM21845 provides a tax-exempt pathway for certain employer-funded advisory services delivered through Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs).20 The exemption covers counselling addressing stress, debt problems, bereavement, workplace issues, and other welfare matters. HMRC's guidance at EIM21845, however, explicitly excludes legal advice from the welfare counselling exemption, alongside tax advice, financial advice (except debt-related matters), and leisure or recreation advice.20

The critical nuance lies in the HMRC-EAPA agreed position: legal information provided within the context of welfare counselling does not disqualify the exemption, provided it remains within agreed guidelines.2021 A referral for specific, bespoke legal advice falls outside the exemption, but general signposting -- informing an employee that estate planning exists, that pension nomination forms should be reviewed, or that lasting powers of attorney are available -- may sit within the permissible boundary when delivered as part of a broader welfare counselling intervention.

This distinction creates a narrow but useful pathway. An EAP can incorporate legal information and signposting within financial wellbeing counselling without jeopardising the welfare counselling exemption, while employees requiring substantive legal services are directed to external providers funded through one of the other delivery models. Benefits managers structuring EAP contracts should ensure the service specification clearly delineates legal information (permissible) from legal advice (excluded).21

3.4 Model D: Trivial Benefits Exemption

Section 323A of ITEPA 2003 provides that a benefit is exempt from income tax where the cost does not exceed GBP 50, the benefit is not cash or a cash voucher, it is not provided as a contractual entitlement, and (critically) it is not provided through a salary sacrifice arrangement.14 The GBP 50 limit and the prohibition on salary sacrifice or contractual provision severely constrain this model's utility for legal services. A brief legal information session or a guide to estate planning fundamentals might fall within the threshold, but any substantive legal service -- will drafting, lasting power of attorney preparation, or estate planning consultation -- would exceed GBP 50 and be ineligible.14

The trivial benefits exemption should therefore be viewed as a supplementary mechanism for low-cost awareness activities, not as a primary delivery model for legal services.

3.5 Model E: Hybrid Approach

The most effective strategy for most employers combines elements of multiple models:

  • Tax-exempt EAP welfare counselling incorporating legal information and financial wellbeing signposting (Model C), funded by the employer at no tax cost to the employee
  • Voluntary payroll deduction (Model B) offering access to substantive legal services -- will writing, lasting powers of attorney, estate planning -- at a negotiated group rate
  • Employer-provided pensions advice under s.308C (exempt up to GBP 500 per tax year), covering pension nomination strategy relevant to the April 2027 IHT changes12
  • Optional employer-funded benefit in kind (Model A) for employers willing to absorb Class 1A NIC in exchange for a more compelling employee proposition

The s.308C pensions advice exemption warrants careful scoping. It covers advice relating to pensions, including pension rights, options on retirement, and pension transfers.12 Whether advice on pension nomination strategy -- specifically the distinction between binding and non-binding death benefit nominations in the context of the April 2027 IHT changes -- falls within s.308C scope or crosses into estate planning territory remains a boundary question. Employers should seek specific HMRC clearance or professional guidance before assuming that estate-planning-adjacent pension advice qualifies for the exemption.

3.6 Delivery Model Comparison

Criterion Salary Sacrifice Employer BIK Voluntary Payroll Deduction EAP Welfare Counselling Trivial Benefits Hybrid
Employee income tax Tax on higher of salary forgone or benefit value (s.203A) Tax on cost to employer (s.204) No tax advantage; paid from net pay Exempt (within agreed scope) Exempt (below GBP 50) Mixed: exempt elements + taxable/net pay elements
Employer NIC Class 1A at 15% on benefit value Class 1A at 15% on cost to employer None None (exempt benefit) None (exempt benefit) Varies by component
NMW risk Yes -- contractual pay reduced No No No No No (no salary sacrifice element)
Scope of legal services Full range (but no tax advantage) Full range Full range Legal information only; legal advice excluded Below GBP 50 only Full range through combined models
Administrative burden High (contract variation, NMW monitoring, OpRA reporting) Moderate (BIK reporting; mandatory payrolling from April 2027) Low (payroll deduction only) Low (EAP contract management) Low (ad hoc, below GBP 50) Moderate (multiple components)
Recommended No Situational Yes Yes (for signposting) Marginal Yes

4. National Minimum Wage Compliance and Enforcement

4.1 The Salary Sacrifice and National Minimum Wage Interaction

Salary sacrifice reduces contractual pay, and the reduced amount forms the starting point for National Minimum Wage (NMW) calculations.22 The National Living Wage stands at GBP 12.21 per hour from 1 April 2025.22 Employers operating multiple salary sacrifice arrangements -- pensions, electric vehicles, cycle-to-work schemes -- face cumulative risk of pushing lower-paid employees below statutory thresholds.

In 2024-25, HMRC returned approximately GBP 5.8 million in NMW arrears to over 25,000 workers, with penalties of up to 200% for underpayments and reputational damage through naming and shaming.23 While the government has indicated that in some instances penalties will not be charged for NMW breaches related to salary sacrifice, employers remain liable for arrears and must remediate any shortfall.23

Adding a legal services salary sacrifice arrangement to an employer already operating pension and vehicle schemes would increase cumulative NMW exposure, particularly for hourly-paid and lower-salaried employees. This compliance risk, combined with the absence of any tax advantage, reinforces the conclusion that salary sacrifice is not the appropriate vehicle for legal services.

4.2 The Fair Work Agency

The Employment Rights Act 2025 establishes the Fair Work Agency (FWA) as a single enforcement body from April 2026, consolidating the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, HMRC's NMW enforcement team, and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.24 The FWA gains powers to enforce holiday pay rights without requiring individual worker claims and is expected to intensify NMW enforcement as it consolidates operational capacity. Benefits managers should anticipate heightened scrutiny of salary sacrifice arrangements, particularly where multiple schemes operate concurrently across a diverse workforce.

5. Mandatory Payrolling and Administrative Considerations

From April 2027, all employers must report most benefits in kind through payroll in real time, replacing the P11D reporting system.1825 Class 1A NIC on benefits will be calculated and paid through payroll each pay period rather than annually. Exceptions apply for employment-related loans and accommodation, but all other taxable benefits -- including employer-funded legal services -- fall within the mandatory payrolling regime.

The shift was originally planned for April 2026 but was delayed to April 2027, with voluntary early adoption available from April 2026 to allow employers to test systems and processes.1825 The implications for legal services delivery are practical rather than strategic:

  • Employer-funded benefit in kind (Model A) requires integration of the benefit valuation into the Full Payment Submission each pay period, with Class 1A NIC calculated in real time
  • Voluntary payroll deduction (Model B) is unaffected because no benefit in kind arises
  • EAP welfare counselling (Model C) is unaffected if the exemption conditions are met (exempt benefits are excluded from payrolling)

The mandatory payrolling regime favours simpler, predictable delivery models. An employer-funded flat-rate benefit (e.g., GBP 250 per employee for will writing) is administratively straightforward to payroll. Variable-cost or usage-based arrangements create pay-period valuation complexity that increases the payroll operational burden. Benefits managers should factor administrative simplicity into their delivery model selection, particularly during the transition period from April 2026 to April 2027.

6. Structuring Legal Services for the Post-2027 Landscape

6.1 The Convergence of April 2027

April 2027 brings three concurrent changes that collectively reshape the benefits landscape for legal services:118

  1. Pension death benefits entering IHT scope -- driving employee demand for estate planning, will writing, and pension nomination review
  2. Mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind -- requiring real-time reporting and NIC payment for any employer-funded legal services
  3. Continued heightened NMW enforcement -- under the Fair Work Agency, now operational for twelve months

Benefits managers who plan for this convergence in 2026 will be positioned to respond to employee demand with compliant, administratively efficient delivery structures. Those who delay risk either failing to meet employee expectations or implementing rushed arrangements that create compliance exposure.

6.2 The Evolving Salary Sacrifice Landscape

The National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, published 4 December 2025, introduces a GBP 2,000 annual cap on NIC-exempt salary sacrifice pension contributions from April 2029.2627 Amounts above GBP 2,000 will be subject to both employer and employee Class 1 NICs. The measure is projected to raise GBP 4.7 billion in 2029-30 and will affect approximately 3.3 million individuals.26

While the pension NIC cap does not directly affect legal services (which, as established, derive no salary sacrifice tax advantage), it signals a broader policy direction of constraining salary sacrifice benefits. Employers may find that the compliance burden and political risk of expanding salary sacrifice to new benefit categories outweigh any theoretical operational convenience. The trajectory favours transparent employer-funded provision and voluntary employee participation rather than contractual pay restructuring.

6.3 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Benefits Design

Legal services provision through employee benefits programmes carries DEI implications that benefits managers should evaluate. Estate planning needs vary significantly by demographic: employees from culturally diverse backgrounds may have succession traditions that do not align with standard will templates; employees in non-traditional family structures may require more complex estate planning; and younger employees accumulating pension wealth for the first time may be least likely to have wills in place yet most affected by the April 2027 pension IHT changes.3

Delivery models should ensure equitable access across the workforce. Voluntary payroll deduction at a negotiated group rate offers equal access regardless of salary level (unlike salary sacrifice, which creates greater NMW risk for lower-paid employees). EAP signposting reaches all employees through existing welfare infrastructure. Employer-funded provision, while creating a taxable benefit, ensures the service is available to all eligible employees without requiring personal expenditure.

6.4 Implementation Recommendations

Benefits managers evaluating legal services provision should apply the following decision framework:

  1. Confirm salary sacrifice is inappropriate -- legal services are not an excluded exemption under ITEPA 2003 s.228A; the s.203A "higher of" test eliminates tax advantage; NMW risk is additive
  2. Assess workforce demand -- survey employees on estate planning needs, particularly in light of April 2027 pension IHT changes; CIPD data suggests 65% of employees value financial wellbeing provision3
  3. Review existing EAP scope -- determine whether the current EAP contract includes legal information signposting within welfare counselling; if not, negotiate inclusion within the HMRC-EAPA agreed position boundary21
  4. Select primary delivery model -- voluntary payroll deduction for most employers (low risk, no employer NIC); employer-funded BIK for employers seeking a stronger wellbeing proposition (accept Class 1A NIC at 15%)
  5. Scope s.308C pensions advice -- assess whether pension nomination strategy advice can be delivered under the pensions advice exemption; seek professional guidance on the boundary between pensions advice and estate planning12
  6. Prepare payroll systems -- if adopting employer-funded BIK, ensure payroll software can accommodate mandatory real-time reporting from April 2027; consider voluntary early adoption from April 202618
  7. Monitor legislative developments -- the pension death benefit IHT provisions remain subject to parliamentary passage; the pension salary sacrifice NIC cap is before Parliament with an April 2029 effective date26

Conclusion

Legal services cannot be delivered tax-efficiently through salary sacrifice under the current Optional Remuneration Arrangements framework. The absence of legal services from every excluded and special case exemption category under ITEPA 2003 s.228A, combined with the s.203A "higher of" test that may tax employees on more than the benefit's economic value, renders salary sacrifice structurally unsuitable for this benefit type.

The analysis does not mean legal services are undeliverable as employee benefits. The optimal structure for most employers is a hybrid model combining tax-exempt EAP welfare counselling with legal information signposting, voluntary payroll deduction at a negotiated group rate for substantive legal services, and employer-provided pensions advice under the s.308C exemption where scope permits. Employers prepared to absorb Class 1A NIC may fund legal services directly as a taxable benefit in kind, yielding a stronger employee proposition.

The April 2027 pension death benefit IHT changes create a strategic imperative. Employees who have accumulated pension wealth will require estate planning services -- will writing, nomination strategy review, lasting powers of attorney -- that most employer benefits programmes do not currently address. Benefits managers who structure compliant, accessible delivery models during 2026 will meet this demand effectively while avoiding the compliance traps of salary sacrifice, NMW exposure, and administrative complexity under mandatory payrolling.

The business case for legal services as an employee benefit rests on financial wellbeing, talent retention, and anticipation of regulatory change -- not on tax efficiency through salary sacrifice. Recognising this distinction is the foundation of effective benefits design.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 21 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Employment Tax, Employee Benefits, Total Reward Strategy, Payroll Compliance

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the benefits that retain tax advantage under salary sacrifice (OpRA excluded exemptions) and confirm that legal services are not among them
  2. Explain the "higher of" test under ITEPA 2003 s.203A and its practical effect on the taxation of non-exempt benefits provided through salary sacrifice
  3. Distinguish between salary sacrifice, voluntary payroll deduction, and employer-funded benefit in kind as delivery models for legal services, including their respective tax treatments and NMW implications
  4. Evaluate the welfare counselling exemption boundary at EIM21845 and the HMRC-EAPA agreed position on legal information within Employee Assistance Programme services
  5. Design a compliant delivery model for employer-funded legal services that integrates the April 2027 pension death benefit IHT changes and mandatory payrolling requirements

Professional Competency Mapping

  • CIPD Advanced Diploma: Total Reward Management -- benefits design, compliance, and strategic alignment
  • CIPP Payroll Technician Certificate: Employment tax, salary sacrifice, benefits in kind reporting
  • ATT Taxation Technician: Employment income, benefits code, OpRA framework

Reflective Questions

  1. How would the April 2027 pension death benefit IHT changes affect demand for estate planning services among employees within the organisations advised or managed?
  2. What steps would be necessary to audit existing salary sacrifice arrangements for cumulative NMW compliance risk, particularly in the context of Fair Work Agency enforcement?
  3. How might the distinction between legal information (permissible within EAP welfare counselling) and legal advice (excluded) be operationally defined within an EAP service specification?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 25 February 2026. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. GOV.UK, "Changes to inheritance tax for pensions" (October 2024, updated September 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-inheritance-tax-for-pensions ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Royal London for Advisers, "IHT: pension death benefits from April 2027." https://adviser.royallondon.com/technical-central/pensions/death-benefits/inheritance-tax-on-pension-death-benefits-from-april-2027/ ↩ ↩2

  3. CIPD, Reward Management Survey (2022). https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/reports/reward-surveys/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. CIPD, "One in five employers say they have no clear objectives for their employee benefits" (2022). https://www.cipd.org/uk/about/news/reward-management-survey-news-benefits-packages/ ↩

  5. GOV.UK, "National Insurance rates and categories: Contribution rates." https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Deloitte TaxScape, "Increase to Employer NIC rate and lowering of the secondary threshold" (October 2024). https://taxscape.deloitte.com/measures-autumn-budget-2024/increase-to-employer-nic-rate-and-lowering-of-the-secondary-threshold.aspx ↩

  7. Employee Benefits / Broadstone, "43% of employers introduced salary sacrifice schemes in response to 2024 Budget" (March 2025). https://employeebenefits.co.uk/total-reward/43-of-employers-introduced-salary-sacrifice-schemes-in-response-to-2024-budget/281619.article ↩

  8. Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, s.69A. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/section/69A ↩

  9. Finance Act 2017 (c.10), Schedule 2 -- Optional remuneration arrangements. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/10/schedule/2/enacted ↩

  10. Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, s.228A. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/section/228A ↩

  11. HMRC Employment Income Manual, EIM44132 -- Optional remuneration arrangements: special case exemptions. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim44132 ↩ ↩2

  12. GOV.UK, "Salary sacrifice for employers." https://www.gov.uk/guidance/salary-sacrifice-and-the-effects-on-paye ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. GOV.UK, "Optional remuneration arrangements." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/optional-remuneration-arrangements/optional-remuneration-arrangements ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  14. GOV.UK, "Tax exemption for trivial benefits in kind: draft guidance." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-exemption-for-trivial-benefits-in-kind-draft-guidance/tax-exemption-for-trivial-benefits-in-kind-draft-guidance ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. HMRC Employment Income Manual, EIM20020 -- The benefits code. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim20020 ↩ ↩2

  16. Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, s.203A. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/section/203A ↩ ↩2

  17. Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, Part 3, Chapter 10. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/part/3/chapter/10 ↩

  18. GOV.UK, "Getting ready for mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind." https://www.gov.uk/guidance/draft-guidance-and-legislation-to-aid-preparation-for-reporting-benefits-in-kind-in-real-time/getting-ready-for-mandatory-payrolling-of-benefits-in-kind ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  19. Tax Adviser Magazine, "National Minimum Wage and salary sacrifice arrangements." https://www.taxadvisermagazine.com/article/national-minimum-wage-and-salary-sacrifice-arrangements ↩ ↩2

  20. HMRC Employment Income Manual, EIM21845 -- Particular benefits: exemption for welfare counselling. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim21845 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  21. EAPA UK / HMRC Agreed Position on Legal & Financial Elements of a core EAP Signpost Service. https://www.hmrc.gov.uk/gds/eim/attachments/EAPA_HMRC_Agreed.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  22. GOV.UK, "National Minimum Wage rates." https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates ↩ ↩2

  23. GOV.UK, "National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage: government evidence on enforcement and compliance 2025" (November 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-living-wage-and-national-minimum-wage-government-evidence-on-enforcement-and-compliance-2025 ↩ ↩2

  24. Acas, "Employment Rights Act 2025." https://www.acas.org.uk/employment-rights-act-2025 ↩

  25. Bishop Fleming, "Mandatory payrolling of benefits delayed until 2027." https://www.bishopfleming.co.uk/insights/mandatory-payrolling-benefits-delayed-until-2027 ↩ ↩2

  26. House of Commons Library, "National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill" CBP-10423 (December 2025). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10423/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  27. ICAEW, "Budget: NIC saving on salary sacrifice pension contributions capped" (November 2025). https://www.icaew.com/insights/tax-news/2025/nov-2025/budget-nic-saving-on-salary-sacrifice-pension-contributions-capped ↩

Preview Free