In B Bimson v HMRC (No 2) (TC01911 – 4 April) an individual (B) had been appointed as a subpostmaster in 2000. In 2005 the Post Office decided to close his office (along with a large number of similar post offices). The Post Office paid B £77 905 as compensation. B did not include this payment on his 2005/06 tax return. HMRC issued an amendment treating it as taxable under ITEPA 2003 s 401 (subject to relief for the first £30 000 under s 403). B appealed contending that he should be treated as a self-employed agent of the Post Office. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed his appeal holding that a subpostmaster held an ‘office’ and the payment which B had received was taxable compensation for the loss of that office.
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In B Bimson v HMRC (No 2) (TC01911 – 4 April) an individual (B) had been appointed as a subpostmaster in 2000. In 2005 the Post Office decided to close his office (along with a large number of similar post offices). The Post Office paid B £77 905 as compensation. B did not include this payment on his 2005/06 tax return. HMRC issued an amendment treating it as taxable under ITEPA 2003 s 401 (subject to relief for the first £30 000 under s 403). B appealed contending that he should be treated as a self-employed agent of the Post Office. The First-tier Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed his appeal holding that a subpostmaster held an ‘office’ and the payment which B had received was taxable compensation for the loss of that office.
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
