References: [2012] UKUT 320 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Henderson J
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 ITEPA – whether shares were ‘estricted securities’ within s 423(2)(c) – s 429 whether shares were in associated company: s416 control at general meeting level – sham: whether exculpatory provision in Articles a sham. Ramsay- whether on a broad Ramsay approach the scheme was outside Ch 2

References: [2014] UKFTT 473 (TC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC INCOME TAX – PAYE – penalty for late submission of Employer’s annual return – whether there was a ‘reasonable excuse’ – no – whether penalty disproportionate – no

References: [2014] UKUT 292 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Income Tax and NIC – emoluments/earnings – tax avoidance scheme – remuneration trust – employees’ individual sub-trusts – ‘protectors’ – (1) whether payments into sub-trusts were emoluments/earnings subject to PAYE and NIC; -No (2) whether loans from sub-trusts were emoluments/earnings subject to PAYE and NIC; -No (3) ‘Ramsay’ principle – whether FTT erred in law; – No – Case remitted to FTT to determine certain matters, but otherwise appeal dismissed.

References: [2013] UKUT 383 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC INCOME TAX – self-assessment – ITA ss 64, 131 – claim for relief to be ‘carried back’ intimated in earlier year return – whether FA 2008 s 130 engaged and HMRC able to set off disputed income tax liability against VAT repayment admitted to be due – TMA ss 8, 9, 9A, 42, Schs 1A, 1B – HMRC v Cotter considered – Cotter binding on this tribunal and determinative in applicant’s favour – no debit on account against which set-off could be effected VAT – whether use of FA 2008 s 130 to refuse immediate VAT repayment a proportionate remedy – yes

References: [2012] UKUT 229 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mann J
The tax payers appealed against a finding that they had been self employed contractors and not employees while working as entertainers on cruise ships.

References: [2014] UKUT 13 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Deduction of travel expenses – medical practitioner in private practice – travel between office at home and place of business – travel between other locations and place of business – whether ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purposes of a trade or profession – section 74 ICTA 1988 – section 34 ITTOIA 2005

References: [2014] UKUT 344 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC INCOME TAX – tax avoidance scheme – whether there was transfer of overseas securities and payment of manufactured overseas dividend when relevant statutory provisions construed purposively and transactions viewed realistically – no – whether annual payment not payable under deduction and retention of income tax was deductible for purposes of income tax – no – if payment deductible as payment of manufactured overseas dividends treated as annual payments within section 349(1) ICTA 1988 whether Section 3 ICTA 1988 restricts tax relief to higher rate – yes – appeal by Appellant dismissed and appeal by Respondents allowed

References: [2014] UKFTT 480 (TC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Income tax – late payment penalty – whether reasonable excuse

References: [2013] UKUT 337 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Income Tax – deductions for rent payable under tenancy agreement for a nine month period whilst actor appeared in stage production – were these wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of his profession – incorrect test applied by First-tier Tribunal – case remitted

References: [2014] UKFTT 479 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Huddleston UTJ
UTTC Income Tax – PAYE – Penalty for late submission of PAYE return pursuant to Section 98 (2) and (3) TMA 1970 – reasonable excuse – appeal allowed

References: [2013] UKUT 575 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC INCOME TAX – penalty for careless inaccuracy within a self assessment return leading to understatement of liability to tax – appellant in receipt of compensation payment exceeding £30,000 on termination of employment – appellant failed to include payment in tax return – compensation sum subsequently taxed and penalty levied – appeal against penalty – FTT held that appellant had been careless and penalty affirmed – FTT decision upheld and appellant’s appeal dismissed’

References: [2013] UKUT 353 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC INCOME TAX – PENALTY – assessment based on suppressed takings of restaurant business – negligent return – standard of proof in penalty proceedings – Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights – whether appellant’s article 6 right to a public hearing within a reasonable time had been contravened – relevant period for assessing delay – whether delay had prejudiced appellant – whether First-tier Tribunal has power to reduce penalty on account of unreasonable delay – TMA 1970, s 100B – whether appellant had discharged the evidential burden to rebut the presumption under TMA, s 101 that the tax assessment was correct – whether on the evidence the First-tier Tribunal’s findings as to suppressed takings were capable of being upset – determination of amount of penalty
This case cites:

• Appeal from – Khawaja -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2012] UKFTT 183 (TC))
  FTTTx Income Tax – Penalties – Suppressed takings from Restaurant business reflected in concealed director’s remuneration – Negligent submission of incorrect Tax Returns – Abatement of penalty. . .
• At FTTTx – Revenue and Customs -v- Khawaja ChD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 1687 (Ch), Times)
  The court considered the standard of proof required before the Commissioners when considering the application of penalties.
  Held: When challenging the assessment of a penalty on a taxpayer, there was no reason why the normal civil standard of . .

References: [2014] UKFTT 471 (TC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC INCOME TAX – PAYE – penalty for late submission of Employer’s annual return – whether there was a ‘reasonable excuse’ – yes in part – whether penalty disproportionate – no

References: [2011] UKUT 433 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Briggs J
UTTC PAYE – National insurance contributions – liability to primary and secondary Class 1 National Insurance contributions – whether leaders taking Weight Watchers classes are employed earners, and Weight Watchers UK Ltd their employer.

References: [2013] UKUT 225 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Norris J
UTTC INCOME TAX – claim for loss on disposal of loan stock – whether loan stock a ‘relevant discounted security’ – FA 1996, Sch 13, para 3 – whether additional payment on redemption of loan stock was interest – yes – appeal dismissed.
This case cites:

• Appeal from – Pike -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx ([2011] STI 1990, [2011] SFTD 830, Bailii, [2011] UKFTT 289 (TC))
  FTTTx Income tax – whether a security was a relevant discounted security – security paying on redemption a sum calculated as 7.25% per annum accruing daily – whether ‘interest’ includes sums not paid periodically . .

This case is cited by:

• Appeal from – Pike -v- HM Revenue and Customs CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 824)
  The taxpayer challenged rejection of his claim for a loss relief arising from a ‘relevant discounted security’ within the meaning of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996.
  Held: It would only be such if, taking the security as at the time of its . .

References: [2014] UKUT 68 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Non-approved retirement benefits scheme – refusal of relief from income tax in respect of payments by employer – proper procedure for challenge by taxpayer – judicial review or statutory appeal Non-approved retirements benefits scheme – refusal of relief after issue of closure notice – whether too late to challenge refusal in appeal against closure notice (if statutory appeal were the correct route of challenge) Non-approved retirements benefits scheme – section 392 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 – substitution of taxpayer’s brother for taxpayer as beneficiary – meaning of ‘event’ – whether substitution was a ‘payment’ if made pursuant to a moral but not legal obligation – whether payments by the brother to the taxpayer out of benefits under the scheme could be in substitution for benefits for the taxpayer

References: [2014] UKFTT 477 (TC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC PAYE — Employer’s year-end return – penalty for late submission – whether submitted on time – no – whether penalty due – yes – whether penalty can be discharged on grounds of unfairness – no – whether HMRC’s maintenance prevented submission on time – no – whether penalty proportionate – yes – whether reasonable excuse for late submission – no – penalty confirmed

References: [1991] 1 AC 684
Coram: Lord Templeman
The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid £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: The appeal was allowed. A payment was ‘from’ an employment if it was made as a reward for past services or as an inducement to take up employment. There was no necessity to show hat a payment by a third party had any interest in the past performance of the employment contract.
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 19885
This case cites:

• Appeal from – Shilton -v- Wilmshurst (Inspector of Taxes) CA ([1990] 1 WLR CA)
  The taxpayer was a goalkeeper employed by Nottignham Forest Football Club. On his transfer to Southampton, he was paid £75,000. The revenue appealed a finding that this was not taxable under Schedule E.
  Held: To be taxcable it had to be . .
• Considered – Hamblett -v- Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes) CA ([1987] 1 All ER 916, [1986] 59 TC 694)
  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 . .
• Disapproved – Pritchard (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Arundale ChD ([1972] 3 All ER 1011, 47 TC 680)
  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 . .
• Applied – Hochstrasser -v- Mayes HL ([1960] AC 376)
  With reference to a charge to tax under Schedule E the Act on profits or gains from employment, or emoluments: ‘For my part, I think that [the meaning of the statutory words] is adequately conveyed by saying that, while it is not sufficient to . .
• Cited – Bray -v- Best HL ([1989] STC 159)
  There was not necessarily subsumed in the concession that a payment constituted an emolument from employment a conclusion that the payment must therefore be for a chargeable period within the aggregate period during which the employment subsisted. . .

This case is cited by:

• Appealed to – Shilton -v- Wilmshurst (Inspector of Taxes) CA ([1990] 1 WLR CA)
  The taxpayer was a goalkeeper employed by Nottignham Forest Football Club. On his transfer to Southampton, he was paid £75,000. The revenue appealed a finding that this was not taxable under Schedule E.
  Held: To be taxcable it had to be . .
• Applied – Ian Wilson (Hm Inspector of Taxes) -v- Stephen Clayton ChD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 898 (Ch), Times 07-Jun-04, Gazette 13-May-04, [2004] STC 1022)
  Taxability of compensation paid on compromise of claims after dismissal. The employer introduced new terms, withdrawing car benefits. Having refused the new terms the taxpayer was dismissed. A tribunal held him unfairly dismissed. The council . .
• Cited – Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) -v- Clayton CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1657, Times 12-Jan-05)
  The claim against the defendant at the tribunal had been settled by a compromise which had then been the subject of an order by the tribunal. The Revenue sought to charge the payment to income tax.
  Held: It had been paid ‘in connection with’ . .

References: [2014] UKUT 95 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Rose J
UTTC Income tax – car leased to employee – mileage allowance payments – whether lease arrangement falling within section 114 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 – application of sections 114(3) and 62 ITEPA – whether National Insurance Contributions payable on car – whether car is a ‘company vehicle’ for the purpose of section 236(2) ITEPA

References: Gazette 10-Mar-1993, Ind Summary 01-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.
This case cites:

• Appealed to – Gallagher -v- Jones (Inspector of Taxes) Threlfall -v- Same CA (Gazette 08-Sep-93, Ind Summary 26-Jul-93, Times 01-Jul-93, [1994] Ch 107)
  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 . .

This case is cited by:

• Appeal from – Gallagher -v- Jones (Inspector of Taxes) Threlfall -v- Same CA (Gazette 08-Sep-93, Ind Summary 26-Jul-93, Times 01-Jul-93, [1994] Ch 107)
  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 . .

References: Gazette 08-Dec-93, Times 18-Nov-93, Ind Summary 15-Nov-93
A freelance vision mixer remained self-employed despite having had a series of short term contracts.
This case cites:

• Appeal from – Hall (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Lorimer ChD (Gazette 08-Jul-92)
  A skilled vision mixer who was working for several companies was self employed. . .

This case is cited by:

• Cited – Hewlett Packard Ltd -v- M O’Murphy EAT (EAT/612/01, Bailii, [2001] UKEAT 612_01_2609, EATn)
  The applicant, a computer programmer, worked through his own limited company. That company contracted with an agency to provide his services, and the agency contracted with appellant to supply on those services. The contracts did contain some . .
• Cited – Professional Contractors’ Group and Others -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA (Times 14-Jan-02, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1945, [2002] STC 165)
  Legislation had been enacted to tax under Schedule E, people employed through one man service companies and similar. Representatives of such taxpayers sought review of the legislation as incompatible with European law being a hindrance to the . .
• Appealed to – Hall (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Lorimer ChD (Gazette 08-Jul-92)
  A skilled vision mixer who was working for several companies was self employed. . .