The two companies had established schemes designed to minimise tax on payments to employees, using a purpose made company to take advantage of exemptions under section 423. In oe cse the Revenue appealed against rejection of its challenge,nd in the other the taxpayer.
Held: HMRC’s appeal failed, and that of the second company (UBS) succeeed. It was clear that the ordinary and natural sense of the words in question was that they required no more than that the forced sale provision be ignored. The argument that the scheme should be treated as merely a mechanism for the payment of cash should be rejected.
Rimer, Kitchin, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 452
Bailii
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 423
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTX – Deutsche Bank Group Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Jan-2011
Regulation 80, PAYE Regulations – Section 8, Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Act 1999 – whether sums paid into a share scheme were earnings of the staff for whom they were paid – whether the shares purchased as part of the . .
At UT – UBS AG v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 17-Sep-2012
UTTC Income Tax and NICs: scheme to deliver bonuses in form of shares avoiding income tax and NIC. S18(1) ITEPA Rule 2 – whether employee became ‘entitled to payment’ when amount of bonus determined. Ch 2 Part 7 . .
Cited by:
At CA – UBS Ag and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 9-Mar-2016
UBS AG devised an employee bonus scheme to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the 2003 Act, with the sole purpose other than tax avoidance, and such consequential advantages as would flow from tax avoidance. Several pre-ordained steps . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Income Tax
Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523826