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.


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


Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 181


England and Wales


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