Venables and others v Hornby (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes): HL 4 Dec 2003

The company director taxpayer had retired from his company but stayed on as an unpaid non-executive director. The trust deed for the company’s pension scheme provided for payments to be made to an employee. The director sought relief from payment of income tax under Schedule E.
Held: (Majority) The appeal by the taxpayer was allowed. The fact that he had stayed on in an unpaid capacity did not prevent him being treated as having retired as an employee. That he had a substantial shareholding did not prevent him being an employee. The question was whether the definition treated the definitions of employee and director as coterminous. The definition did not equate the two ideas; the definition of an employee only ‘included’ that of an employee. A retirement either as director or as employee was sufficient. He had retired as an employee.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 65, Times 05-Dec-2003

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 600, Finance Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromDavid J Venables and Others v Hornby (Inspector of Taxes) CA 18-Sep-2002
The appellant was an employee and director of the company. He ceased employment, and sought to receive payments from his pensions, but continued to hold the position of director.
Held: The provisions of the pension scheme had to be read in the . .
CitedBrock v Bradley 1864
A legacy to a single woman if she survives her husband takes effect if she never marries. . .
CitedJones v Westcomb 1711
A gift on a contingency which does not occur nevertheless takes effect on the happening of an event which is a fortiori. . .
CitedMurray v Jones 1813
A gift over in the event of a prior legatee having only one child takes effect if the prior legatee has no child. . .
CitedSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill CA 12-Feb-1999
There is no rule of law, to suggest that a sole director and owner of majority of shareholding, could not be an employee of that company, and be entitled to a redundancy payment on the liquidation of the company. ‘If the tribunal considers that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Company

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188436