HMRC’s recent decision to alter the tax treatment of double cab pick-up trucks has sparked debate among tax professionals. In its latest Employer Bulletin, published in February 2025, HMRC announced the withdrawal of its existing concession, reverting to a basic assessment based on the principles established in the Coca-Cola European Partners tax case.
This shift represents a significant change for businesses and individuals who use these vehicles. Tax expert John Messore breaks down the implications. According to Messore, the core of the issue lies in interpreting the phrase “primarily suited.” He argues the new guidelines lack clarity and fail to accurately reflect the intended use of many pick-up trucks, potentially leading to unfair tax liabilities.
The Coca-Cola case, as many are aware, concerned two-panel vans. The legal dispute centered on deciding whether these vehicles were classified as ‘vans’ or ‘cars’ for tax purposes. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) concluded that the Vauxhall Vivaro was designed primarily for carrying goods (a van), while the VW Kombi was not (a car). This decision was upheld at the Upper Tribunal.
Messore agrees with these initial judgments, highlighting the distinct differences between the vehicles: “For example, one had one rear view window, the other had two.” However, the Court of Appeal’s decision was a key turning point. Both sides in the case wanted equal outcomes for both vehicle types; an outcome that was not possible given the differences. The Court of Appeal overturned one of the FTT decisions, reclassifying the Vivaro as a car.
To justify this reversal, the court had to reinterpret legislative language, leading to internal contradictions, Messore notes. He points out that nowhere in the Coca-Cola case did the judges say that a second row automatically converts a vehicle into a car for tax purposes. According to the judges, “primarily means something more than suitability…. It means first and foremost. It cannot encompass very narrow margins.”
Messore emphasizes that the Court of Appeal’s decision should be considered alongside the specific vehicles involved: “Notwithstanding legislative interpretations, you still have to look at the facts of each case and the actual vehicles. It is quite possible and plausible that had another vehicle been the subject of the litigation it may well have come out as a van.”
He also points out that the interpretation of the law could be motivated by financial considerations. He suggests that “had van BIK (benefit-in-kind) tax been higher than car BIK tax then HMRC would have definitely argued the complete opposite interpretation of the law.” This would have placed a greater tax burden on employees using vans.
In the current context, the new HMRC guidelines concerning double cab pick-up trucks are based on their internal manual, EIM23151. This internal document has no statutory weight. Further, the EIM states adherence to the “primary suitability” test in Section 115 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA). However, Messore points out a critical error. Section 115 defines a “goods vehicle” as one constructed “primarily suited for the conveyance of goods or burden.” The word “suitability” does not appear in the legislation. And it is the construction of the vehicle that must primarily be suited for the conveyance of goods.
To illustrate, Messore draws parallels with the Kombi case. The argument was that although the Kombi had the design characteristics of the Vivaro van, it also shared features with passenger vehicles. Using this same logic, he says the original pick-up truck had one row of seats, then a second row, then back doors were added. But the underlying chassis was still a goods vehicle. He concludes, “It is clearly a goods vehicle notwithstanding that it may have two rows of seats, primarily to carry co-workers to help with loading and unloading sheep, bales of hay etc. If the same vehicle appears in suburbia rather than a field it does not change its character…”
The implication is that regardless of how the vehicle is used, if its construction makes it a van under the law, it should be treated as such.
The current tax law is defective due to its ambiguity and subjectivity, says Messore. He believes the HMRC’s attempt to apply a ‘one size fits all’ approach is misguided and creates an unnecessary burden. The prior HMRC concession made sense. Now, the rules have lost their clarity.
Messore recalls his own experience, having successfully advised Willmott Dixon on a similar tax matter a decade ago. Despite other advisors recommending against it, he argued that the tax payer was indeed entitled to a refund. It was a highly credible win that HMRC decided not to appeal. He hopes that taxpayers will continue to report double cab pick-ups as vans if they genuinely believe those vehicles are constructed for carrying goods. He maintains that, if tested in court, taxpayers have a strong chance of winning.
“The clue to me is in the name. It’s a pick-up truck,” Messore concludes.
