Dolan v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Nov 2020

Income Tax – Self-assessment – Penalties – Penalty for inaccurate return – Whether penalty was invalid if issued before the related tax – No – Whether error was ‘deliberate’- No -Appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 448 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.656844

Olofsson v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Aug 2012

NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS -whether contributions paid in period preceding record of appellant entering national insurance – whether additional contributions paid afterwards which were not reflected on appellant’s national insurance record -no -whether there was a duplicate contribution record – balancing weight of oral and other evidence of appellant against record and evidence on procedures for creation, maintenance and retrieval of national insurance contribution records- contributions record correct – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 490 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.466118

Mitchell (Surveyor of Taxes) v Egyptian Hotels Ltd: HL 9 Jul 1915

A company incorporated in England carried on from there an hotel business in Egypt until 1906. In that year they altered their Articles of Association by resolutions which provided that the Egyptian business of the company should be carried on and managed by a local board in Egypt to the exclusion of any board of directors other than the local board. The Commissioners had found that the head and seat and controlling power of the company remained in England with the board of directors of the company.
Held: Lord Parker and Lord Sumner found that the trade or business of the company was carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom while Lord Parmoor, whose view was shared by Earl Loreburn, was that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were entitled to find that the business was not exclusively carried on outside the United Kingdom when all the general financial arrangements were dealt with and controlled at meeting held from time to time at the offices of the company in England. Lord Parker said that ‘a trade or business cannot be said to be wholly carried on abroad if it be under the control and management of persons resident in the United Kingdom, although such persons act wholly through agents and messengers resident abroad. Where the brain which controls the operations from which the profits and gains arise is in this country, the trade or busines is, at any rate partly, carried on in this country.’

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lord Parker, Lord Sumner

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 2, [1915] AC 1022

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.265980

Nasir v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Nov 2020

Procedure – application for late appeal – no good explanation – refused – evidence as expert – no – VAT – suppression of takings – best judgment – appeal dismissed – Income Tax – – best judgment – appeal dismissed – penalties – appeals allowed in part

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 455 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656856

Uddin v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Nov 2020

INCOME TAX – claim for repayment under UK-Bangladesh Double Tax Convention for five years – repayment for earliest year refused by HMRC on the basis that it was outside the statutory time limit – repayment of tax for later years reduced by tax said to be due for that earliest year – appeal on the basis that the Convention provided for a longer time limit and that HMRC should not have reduced the repayment – HMRC application for appeal to be struck out for lack of jurisdiction – held, application allowed in part and directions issued for the appeal to continue in part.

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 441 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656872

Gray Publishing v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Jan 2014

PAYE and NI. End of year filing. Reasonable excuse. Honest belief as reasonable excuse. R v Unah [2011] EWCA Crim 1837; [2012] 1 WLR 545 followed. Chichester v Commissioners of Revenue and Customs [2012] UKFTT 397 followed. David Wake Walker v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 717 followed. Coales v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKFTT 47 not followed. Burden of proof.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 113 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.521697

Evans v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Jan 2014

FTTTX Income tax – amendments to Appellant’s self-assessments for 2005-06 and 2006-07 – no business records supplied to support the figures in the Appellant’s original returns – significant extra deposits in bank accounts controlled by the Appellant explained as sale proceeds of motor vehicles ‘done up’ by the Appellant as a hobby and not as a trade – amendments proposed by HMRC (as reduced at the hearing) not arbitrary or capricious, being based on the amounts of the deposits – Appellant had not discharged the burden of showing the amendments were wrong – amendments (as so reduced) therefore upheld – associated penalties reduced because of extra 10% mitigation for ‘size and gravity’ arising from downward adjustment to the amendments proposed by HMRC at the hearing, but increased by 5% by Tribunal on grounds of lack of co-operation, net 5% reduction in applicable rate – appeal determined in principle on this basis, liberty to apply if necessary to determine final figures

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 78 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.521686

Community v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Jan 2014

INCOME TAX – PAYE audit – check of employer records – failure to comply with information notice – penalty – appeal against notice and penalty – was information required by notice reasonably required – yes – appeal dismissed – Schedule 36, Finance Act 2008

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 41 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.521674

Dalkeith Private Bowling Club v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Jan 2014

FTTTx Paye – late lodging of employer’s annual return – agents believed return had been successfully filed – reminder and penalty notices issued – problems with third-party software – return still not filed – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 137 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.521679

Lifesmart Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Feb 2012

Penalty for late submission of P35 – return sent in ‘test’ mode – whether the return ‘delivered’ within the meaning of the PAYE Regulations – no – taxpayer’s genuine belief that return was delivered – whether reasonable excuse – yes – appeal allowed and penalty discharged

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 137 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.451970

Mad Dog Casting Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Feb 2012

Default Surcharge – late payment of tax – suggestion caused by illness – no real evidence- no reasonable excuse – question whether penalty for following period disproportionate – jurisdiction – not disproportionate in sense of ‘not merely harsh but plainly unfair’ – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 136 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.451975

Boak v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Feb 2012

Income Tax, Enquiry into Self Assessment Return; whether Return inaccurate; onus of proof; deductions from turnover; adequacy of Appellant’s books and records; whether records destroyed by flood; whether deductions claimed actually incurred; appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 123 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.451952

Nielsen, Andersen and Company v Collins (HM Inspector of Taxes), Tarn v Scanlan (HM Inspector of Taxes): HL 7 Nov 1927

Income Tax, Schedule D – Non-resident company – Exercise of trade within the United Kingdom-Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 and 17 Viet., c. 34), Section 2, Schedule D – Income Tax Act, 1842 (5 and 6 Viet., c. 35), Section 41-Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915 (5 and 6 Geo. V, c. 89), Section 31. U

Citations:

[1927] UKHL TC – 13 – 91

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.634151

Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes): CA 8 Jun 1994

The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory provisions, saying: ‘The question whether strict compliance with a statutory requirement is necessary has arisen again and again in the cases. The question is not whether the requirement should be complied with; of course it should: the question is what consequences should attend a failure to comply. The difficulty arises from the common practice of the legislature of stating that something ‘shall’ be done (which means that it ‘must’ be done) without stating what are to be the consequences if it is not done. The Court has dealt with the problem by devising a distinction between those requirements which are said to be ‘mandatory’ (or ‘imperative’ or ‘obligatory’) and those which are said to be merely ‘directory’ (a curious use of the word which in this context is taken as equivalent to ‘permissive’). Where the requirement is mandatory, it must be strictly complied with; failure to comply invalidates everything that follows. Where it is merely directory, it should still be complied with, and there may be sanctions for disobedience; but failure to comply does not invalidate what follows.’ and ‘The taxpayer’s argument, therefore, comes to this: that the requirement that the Case Stated be transmitted to the High Court is mandatory; but the requirement that this be done within thirty days is not. This is not an easy proposition to accept. Where statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it may be possible to regard the requirement that the act be done as mandatory but the requirement that it be done in a particular manner as merely directory. In such a case the statutory requirement can be treated as substantially complied with if the act is done in a manner which is not less satisfactory having regard to the purpose of the legislature in imposing the requirement. But that is not the case with a stipulation as to time. If the only time limit which is prescribed is not obligatory, there is no time limit at all. Doing an act late is not the equivalent of doing it in time . . This probably cannot be laid down as a universal rule, but in my judgment it must be the normal one. Unless the Court is given a power to extend the time, or some other and final mandatory time limit can be spelled out of the statute, a time limit cannot be relaxed without being dispensed with altogether; and it cannot be dispensed with altogether unless the substantive requirement itself can be dispensed with.’

Citations:

Ind Summary 11-Jul-1994, Gazette 13-Jul-1994, Times 08-Jun-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 731, [1994] EWCA Civ 27, [1994] STC 689

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 56(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited7 Strathay Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping and Finance Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The tenants served a notice on the landlord to enfanchise their properties. The landlord’s counter-notice failed to state whether any estate management scheme existed. The tenants said the counter-notice was invalid.
Held: The landlord’s . .
CitedJJB Sports Plc, Regina (On the Application of) v Telford and Wrekin Borough Council Admn 5-Nov-2008
The authority’s demand notice was served later than was practicable. The company now appealed against a liability order.
Held: The ratepayer’s appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. ‘demand notices must be served by the relevant authority . .
CitedMatheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd EAT 16-Dec-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Litigation Practice, Taxes Management

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84684

National Westminster Bank Plc and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 24 Jun 1994

Shares are allotted to a person when that person acquires an unconditional right to be entered on a company’s register of members. The issue of shares only becomes complete after they are registered in the company’s books for the purposes of the BES scheme.
Lord Templeman said: ‘The Act of 1985 preserves the distinction in English law between an enforceable contract for the issue of shares (which contract is constituted by an allotment) and the issue of shares which is completed by registration. Allotment confers a right to be registered. Registration confers title. Without registration, an applicant is not the holder of a share or a member of the company: the share has not been issued to him . . No person can be a shareholder until he is registered. A person who is not a shareholder by registration cannot claim that the share has been issued to him . .’ and
‘A person who has been allotted shares is in as good a position in equity as a person to whom shares have been issued but that does not mean that there is no distinction between allotment and issue’ and
‘. . The certificate declares to all the world that the person who is named in it is the registered holder of certain shares in the company and that the shares are paid up to the extent therein mentioned . . ‘
HL Income Tax – Reliefs – Business expansion scheme – Relief precluded for a scheme involving loan facilities where shares issued on or after 16 March 1993 – Applications for shares processed, cheques presented for payment, allotments made, and applicants notified by that date, but registration in companies registers of members taking place later – Whether shares issued before 16 March – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, ss 289, 299A, 311(1) – Finance Act 1988, s 50.

Judges:

Lord Templeman, Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Citations:

Gazette 07-Sep-1994, Times 24-Jun-1994, Ind Summary 25-Jul-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 1, [1995] 1 AC 119, [1994] UKHL TC – 67 – 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 289 299A, Companies Act 1985 738

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromNational Westminster Bank Plc and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 10-Jan-1994
Shares in Business Expansion Scheme were not to be treated as issued until they were entered in the company’s share register. The scheme was ineffective being a scheme to avoid Income Tax by financial manipulation. . .
At First InstanceNational Westminster Bank Plc and Another and Barclays Bank Plc and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 6-Aug-1993
A business expansion tax plan was valid if it was issued before the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. Shares were issued on the sending of the allotment letter, not when the shares came to be registered in the company’s books. . .

Cited by:

CitedBermuda Cablevision Limited and others v Colica Trust Company Limited PC 6-Oct-1997
(Bermuda) An alternative remedy to winding up is available to a shareholder where oppressive conduct is alleged, though the main thrust is that the conduct is unlawful. . .
CitedEckerle and Others v Wickeder Westfalenstahl Gmbh and Another ChD 23-Jan-2013
By acting together, two shareholders had first refused the proposed dividend, and replaced the board. They then acquired fiurther shares and achieved a majority of more than 75%, sufficient to pass a special resolution, and proposed the cancellation . .
CitedMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Income Tax, Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84207

McKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard: HL 18 Jun 1999

The taxpayer sought to set off against tax some pounds 200,000 spent defending professional disciplinary proceedings. The House was asked whether this was ‘money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade.’
Held: Where legal costs had been incurred in the defence of professional misconduct proceedings in order to protect the partnership’s ability to continue in practice, such costs were deductible against tax having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

Citations:

Times 18-Jun-1999, Gazette 07-Jul-1999, [1999] UKHL 6, [1999] 1 WLR 1333, [1999] 3 All ER 491

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 130(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal FromDavid McKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard CA 7-May-1997
Legal expenses incurred by a professional in defending disciplinary proceedings are deductible from taxable profits. . .
CitedMallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .
At first instanceMcKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard; Sheppard v McKnight ChD 21-May-1996
Legal costs and fines not deductible – insufficiently connected with trade. . .
CitedMorgan v Tate and Lyle Ltd HL 1955
The words ‘for the purposes of the trade’ in the statute mean ‘for the purposes of enabling a person to carry on and earn profits in the trade’. Money spent for the purpose of preserving the trade from destruction can properly be treated as wholly . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Von Glehn CA 1920
The company had paid a penalty during the First World War under the Customs (War Powers) Act 1915 for exporting goods without taking all reasonable care to secure that the ultimate destination should not be enemy territory. They sought to set off . .
CitedThe Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 21-Nov-1932
(High Court of Australia) The taxpayer newspaper sought to set off against its liability to income tax, sums which it had paid out in damages for defamation.
Held: They were deductible. Such claims against a newspaper are a ‘regular and almost . .
CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
CitedSmith’s Potato Estates Ltd v Bolland (Inspector of Taxes) HL 1948
The taxpayer claimed to deduct the legal costs of contesting an assessment to tax. The dispute was about the computation of the taxpayer’s profits. It assumed that those profits were ascertainable, one way or another, at the time when the dispute . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83555

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby: HL 16 Jul 1997

Rules which disallowed exemption from tax for the transfer of assets abroad in order to avoid income tax do not apply where the taxpayer is not ordinarily resident here.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1997, Gazette 23-Jul-1997, [1997] STC 995, [1997] UKHL TC – 70 – 57, [1997] UKHL 29, [1997] 1 WLR 1071

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739

Citing:

Appeal fromInland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby and Another CA 6-Jan-1995
Anti-avoidance provisions do not catch a transfer of assets which were located abroad and which made at a time when the taxpayer was a non UK resident. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toInland Revenue Commissioners v Willoughby and Another CA 6-Jan-1995
Anti-avoidance provisions do not catch a transfer of assets which were located abroad and which made at a time when the taxpayer was a non UK resident. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82361

Jarmin (Inspector of Taxes) v Rawlings: ChD 13 Dec 1994

Retirement relief was to be given on the sale of a milking parlour and yard when accompanied by a cessation of the trade involving those assets.

Citations:

Ind Summary 23-Jan-1995, Gazette 11-Jan-1995, Times 13-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82496

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Herd: HL 17 Jun 1993

Where an employer has not deducted tax, the employee can be liable to a tax assessment. The recipient of Schedule E income can still be directly assessable.
HL Income Tax – Schedule E – Employment – Gain on sale of shares – Whether taxable under Schedule E – Whether purchaser liable to deduct tax under the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 SI 1973 No. 334 Regulation j-j 13 – Finance Act 1972, 5 79(1), Finance Act 1976, s 67(1).

Citations:

Ind Summary 12-Jul-1993, Times 22-Jun-1993, Gazette 01-Sep-1993, [1993] UKHL TC – 66 – 29, [1993] 1 WLR 1090, [1993] STI 1007, [1993] 3 All ER 56, [1993] STC 436, 1993 SLT 916, 66 TC 29, 1993 SC (HL) 35

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 209, Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82344

Earlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 28 May 1993

In computing company’s tax liability excessive pay not deductible.

Citations:

Times 28-May-1993

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 130

Citing:

Appealed toEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) CA 1-May-1995
A close company has an additional obligation to notify the Revenue that a loan was chargeable to tax, and in default, it was liable for interest. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromEarlspring Properties Ltd v Guest (Inspector of Taxes) CA 1-May-1995
A close company has an additional obligation to notify the Revenue that a loan was chargeable to tax, and in default, it was liable for interest. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80214

DTE Financial Services Ltd v Wilson (Inspector of Taxes): CA 24 May 2001

A scheme by which an employer paid bonuses to senior staff by purchasing contingent reversionary interests in an overseas trust, and then assigning them to the staff without admitting liability for income tax or national insurance contributions when the interests fell into possession. The scheme failed under anti-avoidance provisions under Ramsay principles. The cash payment received was a payment of assessable income under section 203(1) and consideration of later sections was unnecessary.

Citations:

Times 03-May-2001, Gazette 24-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 455

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 203(1) 203B 203F

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedW T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80145

D T E Financial Services Ltd v Wilson (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 9 Nov 1999

A scheme involving the use of offshore discretionary trusts resulting in the payment of funds to the directors of the company from which the payments originated was not effective to exclude such payments from liability to tax. Overall the scheme had the characteristics of artificiality allowing all but one steps to be disregarded. Nevertheless the payment had been made by, in effect, a trustee for the company as an intermediary, and the payment was taxable.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1999, Times 09-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 203B

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79770

Clarke (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks; MacLeod (Inspector of Taxes) v Same; Guild (Inspector of Taxes) v Newrick and Another: ChD 3 May 2000

The relief of foreign earnings given to those working as seafarers, did not apply to those working on a jack-up drilling rig with floating hull, and retractable legs., since this was not a ship. Being a seafarer involved the performance of duties on a ship. Definition in other acts suggested a vessel used in navigation. These rigs were without propulsion. Other decisions indicated the need for it to be used for navigation.

Citations:

Times 03-May-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 193 Sch 12

Cited by:

Appeal fromPerks and Others v Clark and Others CA 27-Jul-2001
Workers on North Sea drilling rigs which were capable of being moved, claimed relief as seafarers, since they were employed on a ship. The first instance court said the rigs were not ships. They appealed.
Held: The word ‘ship’ is an ordinary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79200

Carstairs (Inspector of Taxes) v Sykes: ChD 20 Dec 2000

The taxpayer had claimed tax relief for certain periods (approximately six years) when he was living abroad. The Crown appealed a decision of the commissioners discharging their assessment to tax.
Held: There is a distinction in law between the residence abroad and absence for the purposes of tax relief. The taxpayer can be resident, but absent abroad. For the purposes of the provisions of schedule E tax deductions on foreign earnings, the taxpayer should not be free to include periods when he was neither resident, nor ordinarily resident, when aggregating the qualifying period of absence. Whether someone was at any particular moment absent from the UK could only be answered in the context of the question. In this context that, must require the court to give to meaning of a qualifying period absence in the sense of not being physically present in the place of residence.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 193(1) Sch E

Income Tax, Taxes Management

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78919

Travers Will Trust v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Aug 2013

FTTTx Income tax – trust – copyright royalties – direction not to distribute as income – whether accumulation of income – whether taxable at the rate applicable to trusts – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 686 – whether taxable at the trust rate – Income Tax Act 2007, s 479

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 436 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 686, Income Tax Act 2007 479

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.515230

LM Ferro Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Aug 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – Employment Income – PAYE and NIC – tax avoidance scheme – bonus -whether bonus of restricted securities under Ch 2 Part 7 ITEPA 2003 or whether excluded as ‘money’ under s420(5)(b) ITEPA 2003 – bonus excluded from Part 7 as ‘money’ – GAAR proposal and enactment irrelevant to interpretation of provision – change in law which required re-engineering of scheme mid-way through did not affect conclusion that there was a scheme to pay bonus in money as opposed to securities -Regulation 80 determinations and s8 decisions upheld – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 463 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.515211

Matthews and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Dec 2010

FTTTx EMPLOYMENT OR SELF-EMPLOYMENT – entertainers on cruise lines – whether seafarers’ earnings deduction applies – no – whether HMRC letter relating to a different person creates a legitimate expectation that the same treatment will apply – no – discovery assessment – whether valid – yes – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 24 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.428214

Moore v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Aug 2011

FTTTx Income tax – Whether expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of a trade – Identification of the trade – Appeal allowed in part – Section 34 Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005

Judges:

John Brooks TJ

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 526 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.449507

Carden and Another (T/A Platinum World Travel) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Dec 2010

FTTTx INCOME TAX – INFORMATION NOTICE and ASSOCIATED PENALTY – Appellants failed to provide information and documents as required by Information Notices under schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 – Tribunal satisfied that the information and documents were reasonably required to complete their enquiries – No reasonable excuse for the penalty – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 23 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.428205

Baird v Williams (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 25 May 1999

A clerk to the commissioners, though required to maintain an office for his post, could not set off the costs against tax, where the cost of interest payments on a mortgage to purchase the office were not wholly and exclusively incurred for that purpose.

Citations:

Times 25-May-1999, Gazette 03-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 198(1)

Income Tax

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78087

Ansell (Inspector of Taxes) v Brown: ChD 23 May 2001

A professional rugby player bought and consumed dietary supplements to make it easier to maintain the physical standards required by his employers. He claimed the cost of the supplements against his income tax. The commissioners allowed his claim, and the revenue appealed.
Held: The commissioners had erred. The requirements for the deduction were stringent, exacting and rigid. The expense had not been incurred in the performance of the duties. His duties had not obliged him to incur the expense. The supplements had been incurred in order to put him into a position where he could perform his duties. That was not enough.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 20-Jun-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Sch E

Income Tax

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77805

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: CA 1991

Citations:

[1991] 2 All ER 824

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200597

Shilton v Wilmshurst (Inspector of Taxes): CA 1990

The taxpayer was a goalkeeper employed by Nottingham Forest Football Club. On his transfer to Southampton, he was paid pounds 75,000. The revenue appealed a finding that this was not taxable under Schedule E.
Held: To be taxcable it had to be referrable to the services provided by him under the contract of employment. This payment was made purely to persuade him to move employments, and was not therefore part of his emoluments at the new club. The payment was made in respect of his services at Nottingham, but was made by a third party.

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 373, [1990] STC 55

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 181

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedHamblett v Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes) CA 2-Jan-1986
Affirmed. A single one off lump sum payment was found to be an emolument without consideration as to whether or not it was a capital payment. Miss Hamblett ‘received her payment as a recognition of the fact that she had lost certain rights as an . .
ConsideredPritchard (Inspector of Taxes) v Arundale ChD 1971
Megarry J discussed whether tips receieved were part taxable as an emolument: ‘I think the question to be tested in this way is only one question. Either the emoluments are within the statutory word ‘therefrom’, as explained by the cases, or they . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromShilton v Wilmshurst HL 7-Feb-1991
The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid andpound;75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.199541

The National Provident Institution v Brown (Surveyor of Taxes): CA 10 May 1920

Lord Sterndale MR said: ‘It seems to me to be a general principle of Income Tax Law that a person in order to be taxable in a particular year must have an income arising from a source existing in that year and in order to justify this assessment the Crown must show some reason for departing from that general principle. It is admitted that if the taxation be in respect of a trade, or business, or an office, or of property the taxpayer must continue in the year of charge to carry on the trade or business or hold the office or the property. It was, however, contended for the Crown that the principle did not apply in this case because by the first rule of the Third Case the duty to be charged was computed according to the profits of the preceding year, and, therefore, if the last year was not taxed because there was no source, one year escaped taxation altogether. I do not think the first rule has this effect. The provision as to computation of profits is the same as that in respect of trades, etc., in the first rule of the First Case, and it is admitted that in that instance the trade must exist in the taxable year in order to make the taxpayer liable. I see no reason for construing the same provision in a different way in the two rules; both refer to methods of computation only, and are not directed to whether there is a taxable income or not. Besides, as pointed out in Dowell’s Income Tax Laws, 7th Edition, page 300, the Third Case originally dealt with property which must have existed in the hands of the taxpayer in the taxable year in order to make him liable, and it can hardly have been intended by the insertion of the second rule to alter the effect of the first. if the first year does escape taxation, it is because the Legislature has not inserted in the second rule of the Third Case such a provision as is found in the first rule of the First Case. It is suggested by the Commissioners that the profits of the first year might be taxed under the Sixth Case. I do not think it necessary to decide that point, for even if they be not taxable it does not in my opinion show that the taxpayer can be taxed in respect of a source of income which does not exist.’

Judges:

Lord Sterndale MR

Citations:

[1920] 3 KB 35

Statutes:

Income Tax 1842

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromThe National Provident Institution v Brown (Surveyor of Taxes) HL 3-Jun-1921
The House was asked (inter alia) whether discounts on certain Treasury Bills could be subject to taxation, on a preceding year basis, for a year in which the taxpayer did not hold or have any transactions in the relevant securities.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606460

David Wake-Walker Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Nov 2013

FTTTx PAYE and NI. End of year filing. Reasonable excuse. Honest belief as reasonable xcuse. R v Unah [2011] EWCA Crim 1837; [2012] 1 WLR 545 followed. Chichester v Commissioners of Revenue and Customs [2012] UKFTT 397 followed. Coales v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKFTT 47 not followed.
Burden of proof.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 717 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.519599

RJ Herbert Engineering Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Dec 2013

FTTTX INCOME TAX – PAYE – penalties under Schedule 56, Finance Act 2009 – whether no liability for such penalties because – (1) the relevant late payments of PAYE were made during the currency of an agreement for deferred payment (para. 10, Sch 56, FA 2009) – found on the facts that 4 out of 6 of them were – or (2) because there should be a reduction to take account of special circumstances (para. 9 Sch 56 FA 2009) – held that the Tribunal would make no such reduction in relation to the remaining 2 penalties – or (3) because there was a reasonable excuse for the failure to make the relevant payments of PAYE on time (para 16 Sch 56 FA 2009) – found on the facts in relation to the remaining 2 penalties that no such reasonable excuse had been established – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 753 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.519643

Kohal v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Sep 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY – HMRC treated a series of deposits in the Appellant’s bank accounts as taxable income – the Appellant’s explanations of the sources for the deposits were on the whole unconvincing – assessment reduced to andpound;24,924.98 – penalty reduced to andpound;11,216.23 – Appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 487 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.515559

Revell v Edinburgh Life Insurance Co: 1906

Citations:

(1906) 5 TC 221

Cited by:

CitedScottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Jul-2011
The taxpayer insurance company had transferred sums from accounts designated as Capital Reserves. The Revenue said that these were properly part of the profit and loss accounts for the respective tax years, and chargeable receipts.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.441622

Smith (Inspector of Taxes) v Abbott; Same v Holt; Same v Scovell Etc: ChD 22 Jan 1992

Expenditure incurred by an employee directly mainly to keep himself qualified to do his work. Reading of newspapers is an necessary part of a journalist’s occupation and the cost of buying them is a deductible expense.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jan-1992

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 s198 (1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89312

Smith (Inspector of Taxes) v Woodhouse and Others; Fitzpatrick and Others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 18 Feb 1994

An allowance paid to a journalist by his employer to pay for newspapers he was to buy and read as part of his work was taxable under Sch E. It was not actually part of his job to read them.

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-1994, Independent 18-Feb-1994

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 189(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Income Tax

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89315

Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd and Related Appeals: HL 16 Oct 1995

Chattels which became affixed to a lessee’s land became fixtures, and were not available for tax allowances calculations. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘The terms expressly or implicitly agreed between the fixer of the chattel and the owner of the land cannot affect the determination of the question whether, in law, the chattel has become a fixture and therefore in law belongs to the owner of the soil . . The terms of such agreement will regulate the contractual rights to sever the chattel from the land as between the parties to that contract and, where an equitable right is conferred by the contract, as against certain third parties. But such agreement cannot prevent the chattel, once fixed, becoming in law part of the land and as such owned by the owner of the land so long as it remains fixed.’ and ‘the intention of the parties as to ownership of the chattel fixed to the land is only material so far as such intention can be presumed from the degree and object of the annexation.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Citations:

Gazette 08-Nov-1995, Times 16-Oct-1995, Ind Summary 06-Nov-1995, [1996] AC 454

Statutes:

Capital Allowances Act 1990 24(1) 53(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMelluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd and Related Appeals CA 17-Aug-1994
Capital allowances were not available on plant which had been leased to the Local Authority and which had since had become part of land occupied by them. The plant was no longer owned by the tax payers. Leased fixtures given capital allowances by . .

Cited by:

CitedElitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .
CitedBotham and others v TSB Bank Plc CA 30-Jul-1996
A flat had been repossessed by the bank. The parties disputed whether items were fixtures and charged with the land or not.
Held: The judge had correctly analysed and applied the law of fixtures and fittings. The appeal failed save to a . .
CitedL, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 1-Mar-2007
The court considered the proper content of an enhanced criminal record certificate. The claimant said that it should contain only matter relating to actual or potential criminal activity.
Held: As to the meaning of section 115: ‘if Parliament . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Corporation Tax, Income Tax, Land

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.83611

Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No3) Ltd and Related Appeals: ChD 15 Feb 1994

No capital allowances were available for a lease of heating equipment in a tenanted property. Allowances might be available if the property were not tenanted.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Mar-1994, Ind Summary 28-Mar-1994, Times 15-Feb-1994

Statutes:

Finance Act 1971 44(1)

Cited by:

Appeal fromMelluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd and Related Appeals CA 17-Aug-1994
Capital allowances were not available on plant which had been leased to the Local Authority and which had since had become part of land occupied by them. The plant was no longer owned by the tax payers. Leased fixtures given capital allowances by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.83614

Cook (Inspector of Taxes) v Billings and Related Appeals: ChD 8 Jun 1999

Members of a partnership between them holding shares in a limited company, were not disqualified from claiming relief from tax under appropriate circumstances under the Business Expansion Scheme. Their separate interests were not to be aggregated because of the partnership.

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 291 (1)

Income Tax

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79475

Kirkham v Williams: CA 16 Jun 1991

The taxpayer was not liable to income tax on a one off transaction which did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jul-1991, [1991] 1 WLR 863, Times 16-Jun-1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.268826

Butler v Wildin: 1988

Two brothers acquired a company and were the sole directors. 19 shares each were acquired by the children with their own money. Two later born children also acquired 19 shares therein with their own money from their respective fathers and others, and that the brothers had no shares. The company developed a site by building offices with the use of loans from a bank repayment of which was guaranteed by the brothers and let the offices. The company declared a dividend and the brothers, on behalf of their children, made repayment claims in relation to the tax credits attributable to those dividends. The claims were rejected on the grounds that there was a settlement in consequence of which the dividends were deemed to be the income of the brothers and not of their children. That was rejected by the Special Commissioners.
Held: The time at which the existence or otherwise of the settlement was to be judged was when the company was acquired and the shares allotted: ‘At that date a potentially profitable venture had been identified and, as will be seen, from that date the brothers did everything that needed to be done to ensure that the opportunity was exploited by the company.’ and ‘It is in my judgment plain beyond question that each brother was a party to an arrangement within the definition of a settlement and that the dividends paid to the four older children were paid to them ‘by virtue or in consequence of’ that arrangement. The brothers together arranged for shares in the company to be allotted to the four older children; and they arranged for the negotiations with British Rail to be opened, for the agreement with British Rail to be entered into and for the site to be developed by the company. The steps they took were thoughout directed to achieving the end that was in fact achieved, namely of ensuring that the company and so indirectly the four older children (to the extent of their respective shareholdings) took the benefit of the development of the site at no cost or risk to themselves.’ Referring to the case law: ‘In deciding whether an arrangement is within or without the classes of cases caught by s.437 the starting point must be to identify the arrangement. The question then is whether taken as a whole it did contain the requisite element of bounty. To that question again there can in the instant case be only one answer. The children contributed nothing except the trifling sums which I must assume were paid on the allotment of the shares. They were exposed to no risk.’

Judges:

Vinelott J

Citations:

(1988) 61 TC 666

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 437

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCopeman v Coleman 1939
A company had been formed to take over the taxpayer’s business. He held the shares equally with his wife. Later the company created a class of preference shares of andpound;200 each carrying a fixed preferential dividend, the right to vote if such . .
CitedChinn v Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) HL 11-Dec-1980
The House considered the meaning of the word ‘bounty’ in an income tax context, where it had been used by the courts: ‘My Lords, I would venture to point out that the word ‘bounty’ appears nowhere in the statute. It is a judicial gloss upon the . .

Cited by:

CitedJones v Michael Vincent Garnett (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 15-Dec-2005
Husband and wife had been shareholders in a company, the wife being recorded as company secretary. The company paid dividenceds to both. The husband appealed a decision that the payment to his wife was by way of a settlement and was taxable in his . .
CitedJones v Michael Vincent Garnett (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 15-Dec-2005
Husband and wife had been shareholders in a company, the wife being recorded as company secretary. The company paid dividenceds to both. The husband appealed a decision that the payment to his wife was by way of a settlement and was taxable in his . .
CitedJones v Garnett (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-Apr-2005
The taxpayer worked as an information technology specialist. His earnings were channelled through a limited company. The company paid on part of its income to his wife, with the result that the total tax paid was reduced. The inspector sought to tax . .
CitedJones v Garnett (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Jul-2007
The husband and wife had each owned a share in a company which sold the services of the husband. The Revenue claimed that the payment of dividends to the wife was a settlement.
Held: The Revenue failed. The share had been transferred to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236563

Copeman v Coleman: 1939

A company had been formed to take over the taxpayer’s business. He held the shares equally with his wife. Later the company created a class of preference shares of andpound;200 each carrying a fixed preferential dividend, the right to vote if such dividend were in arrear for three years or more and the right in a winding up to a return of capital paid up. Some of the shares were taken up by his children on which they paid andpound;10 per share. Dividends substantially in excess of the amounts paid up were then declared and the taxpayer, on behalf of his children claimed repayment of the tax paid in respect of the dividend to the extent of that child’s personal allowance.
Held: The claim was rejected. Lawrence J said: ‘In my opinion, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion but that this was not a bona fide commercial transaction, and it appears to me that there was a disposition within the meaning of the definition or an arrangement in the nature of a disposition within [that meaning].’

Judges:

Lawrence J

Citations:

(1939) 22 TC 594

Cited by:

CitedJones v Michael Vincent Garnett (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 15-Dec-2005
Husband and wife had been shareholders in a company, the wife being recorded as company secretary. The company paid dividenceds to both. The husband appealed a decision that the payment to his wife was by way of a settlement and was taxable in his . .
CitedButler v Wildin 1988
Two brothers acquired a company and were the sole directors. 19 shares each were acquired by the children with their own money. Two later born children also acquired 19 shares therein with their own money from their respective fathers and others, . .
AppliedYoung v Pearce 1996
The company created a special class of preference shares and allotted them to the wives of the two shareholders and directors. When substantial preference dividends were paid to the wives, the husbands were assessed to tax on them. They conceded . .
CitedJones v Garnett (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-Apr-2005
The taxpayer worked as an information technology specialist. His earnings were channelled through a limited company. The company paid on part of its income to his wife, with the result that the total tax paid was reduced. The inspector sought to tax . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236560

Advocate (HM) v M’Taggart Stewart: 1906

Citations:

(1906) 43 SLR 465

Cited by:

CitedIngram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Income Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223756

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hawley: 1928

When a legatee of shares received them more than a year after the death, he was not treated as receiving all the accrued dividends as income of the year in which the shares became vested in him, but rather, by relation back to the death, in the year in which each dividend accrued.

Citations:

[1928] 1 KB 578

Cited by:

CitedJemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others CA 11-Mar-2005
The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Wills and Probate

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223514

Hamblett v Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes): CA 2 Jan 1986

Affirmed. A single one off lump sum payment was found to be an emolument without consideration as to whether or not it was a capital payment. Miss Hamblett ‘received her payment as a recognition of the fact that she had lost certain rights as an employee, and by reason of the further fact that she had elected to remain in her employment at GCHQ.’

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 All ER 916, [1986] 59 TC 694

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHamblett v Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 1986
A single one off lump sum payment was found to be an emolument without consideration as to whether or not it was of capital. . .

Cited by:

DistinguishedShilton v Wilmshurst (Inspector of Taxes) CA 1990
The taxpayer was a goalkeeper employed by Nottingham Forest Football Club. On his transfer to Southampton, he was paid pounds 75,000. The revenue appealed a finding that this was not taxable under Schedule E.
Held: To be taxcable it had to be . .
ConsideredShilton v Wilmshurst HL 7-Feb-1991
The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid andpound;75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199544

Hamblett v Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 1986

A single one off lump sum payment was found to be an emolument without consideration as to whether or not it was of capital.

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

[1986] 2 All ER 513, (1986) 59 TC 694

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromHamblett v Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes) CA 2-Jan-1986
Affirmed. A single one off lump sum payment was found to be an emolument without consideration as to whether or not it was a capital payment. Miss Hamblett ‘received her payment as a recognition of the fact that she had lost certain rights as an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199543

Spofforth and Prince v Golder (Inspector of Taxes): 1945

Citations:

(1945) TC 310, (1945) 173 LT 77

Cited by:

CitedNewsom v Robertson ChD 30-Apr-1952
Mr Newsom, a practising barrister sought to set off against his income, the expenses of travelling between his home and his chambers in London. The Inspector appealed the decision of the commissioners that he could do so. The rule required that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.197029

Wicks v Firth (Inspector of Taxes); Johnson v Firth: CA 1981

ICI set up a trust fund to make discretionary payments to its employees to assist meeting the costs of further education. Payments made to children were treated as scholarship income and exempt under the 1970 Act. The revenue claimed it to be an employment benefit.
Held: The benefit was paid to the taxpayer’s son ‘by reason of [the taxpayer’s] employmnt within s61’. The exemption given under s375 did not exclude the charge to tax under s61.

Citations:

[1982] 2 WLR 208, [1982] 2 All R 9

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 375, Finance Act 1976 61

Administrative, Income Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193467

Vaughan-Neil v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 1979

All that is required for a severance payment to be taxable is that there is a ‘connection’ between the actual, prospective or past holding of the employment and the giving of the undertaking.

Judges:

Oliver J

Citations:

[1979] STC 644

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBeak v Robson HL 1942
The issue was whether a payment to an employee in return for a restrictive covenant escaped tax. The obligations flowing from the contract of service and the remuneration to be received by the Respondent in respect of that service were entirely . .

Cited by:

CitedRCI Europe Ltd v Kate Woods (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 16-Dec-2003
The company made payments to a former director in return for a severance agreement which restricted his future business activities.
Held: Despite the fact that all payments were made only after his employment had been terminated, they remained . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190494

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Lactagol: 1954

A company, at the relevant time director controlled, made a payment to its managing director in consideration for his undertaking not to compete with the company within five years of the date when he would leave its service.
Held: The transaction was one involving a commercial basis to buy an asset of value to the company and should not be treated as a distribution for the benefit of the managing director.

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

(1954) 35 TC 230

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBeak v Robson HL 1942
The issue was whether a payment to an employee in return for a restrictive covenant escaped tax. The obligations flowing from the contract of service and the remuneration to be received by the Respondent in respect of that service were entirely . .

Cited by:

CitedRCI Europe Ltd v Kate Woods (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 16-Dec-2003
The company made payments to a former director in return for a severance agreement which restricted his future business activities.
Held: Despite the fact that all payments were made only after his employment had been terminated, they remained . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190493

Threlfall v Jones Inspector of Taxes, Gallagher v Same: ChD 1 Mar 1993

The taxpayer had acquired capital assets under a financing arrangement in which payments were spread over several tax periods. It was appropriate to treat those payments in according with normal accounting practice, rather than to seek to pull them into the one period.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1993, Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromGallagher v Jones (Inspector of Taxes) Threlfall v Same CA 1-Jul-1993
Commercial Practice is to be followed in apportioning payments under a lease between different tax years. There is no requirement that expenditure must be charged to year it in which technically falls due, but tax accounts must not give a misleading . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89892

Inland Revenue v Fisher’s Executors: HL 26 Feb 1926

Super-tax – Total income – Debenture stock created and distributed to shareholders by limited company in satisfaction of bonus declared out of undivided profits – Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (10 Edw. VII, c. 8), Section 66.

Citations:

[1926] UKHL TC – 10 – 302, [1925] 1 KB 451, 10 TC 302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.633832

Constantinesco v R: HL 11 Jul 1927

Income Tax – Payments by Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors for user of patent-Deduction of tax – Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Rule 21 (1) of General Rules.

Citations:

[1927] UKHL TC – 11 – 730

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.634149

W H Muller and Company (London) Ltd v Lethem (HM Inspector of Taxes), Lethem (HM Inspector of Taxes) v W H Muller and Company (London) Ltd: HL 7 Nov 1927

Income Tax, Schedule D-Non-resident company-Exercise of trade within the United Kingdom-Income Tax Act, 1853 (16 and 17 Viet., c. 34), Section 2, Schedule D-Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915 (5 and 6 Geo. V, c. 89), Section 31.

Citations:

[1927] UKHL TC – 13 – 126

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.634152

White v Franklin: CA 1965

The share owners placed half of the issued shares in the company in trust for the taxpayer, in order to persuade him to continue his involvement in the family company as an active director. The trust provided that the income from the shares should be paid to him for ‘so long as he shall be engaged in the management of the co.’ In default the shares would pass to other family members. He sought to be taxed on the basis that the dividend income received through the trust was remuneration from his office or employment as managing director and was earned income. The taxpayer claimed entitlement to earned incoome relief, and the General Commissioners agreed with him.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed. The test of whether the income from the entrusted shares constituted earned income was whether, in the hands of the recipient, it was income earned as a reward for his services. There was ample evidence that this was the case here.

Citations:

[1965] 1 All ER 692, [1965] 1 WLR 508, 109 Sol Jo 177, 42 TaxCas 291, [1965] TR 9, 44 ATC 6

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1952 525(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHM Revenue and Customs v PA Holdings Ltd CA 30-Nov-2011
The company made available to certain employees discretionary annual bonuses which were paid instead by way of shares and received dividends. It now appealed against findings that the payments were taxable subject to Schedule F rates and were liable . .
CitedMorgan v Department for Employment and Learning NIIT 24-Jan-2014
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.601947

Sargaison v Roberts: ChD 1969

The court was asked as to a taxpayer’s entitlement to tax allowances under section 314 of the 1952 Act, and whether, for the purposes of the legislation, a transfer by the taxpayer into trust of a farm and the simultaneous grant by the trustees to him of a lease resulted in the whole of the taxpayer’s interest in the land being transferred to another person (which would have disentitled him to his tax allowance) or operated to reduce his interest from ownership of a freehold to ownership of a lease.
Held: Megarry J took the latter view. He said that the taxpayer’s interest had uno ictu merely been reduced from ownership of the freehold to ownership of a lease. The effect of the transaction was that the taxpayer’s interest had been reduced from ownership of the freehold to ownership of a lease.

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1969] 3 All ER 1072, [1969] 1 WLR 951

Statutes:

Income Tax Act 1952 314

Cited by:

CitedCook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
CitedScott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Land

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.450473