In HMRC v Forde and McHugh ([2014] UKSC 14 – 26 February) the issue was the interpretation of the word ‘earnings’ in SSCBA 1992 s 6(1). This was a lead case in a number of appeals.
Forde and McHugh (FM) had set up a retirement benefit scheme for the benefit of its employees and directors. Transfers of cash and treasury stock were made to the scheme when Mr McHugh was 54 years old. He had no vested interests in the assets of the scheme as FM had specified his retirement age to be 60. His entitlement was contingent as it may be defeated by death before retirement. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the transfers to the scheme were ‘earnings’.
The court first held that any double counting would be counterintuitive and could not be Parliament’s intention. Consequently ...
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 HMRC v Forde and McHugh ([2014] UKSC 14 – 26 February) the issue was the interpretation of the word ‘earnings’ in SSCBA 1992 s 6(1). This was a lead case in a number of appeals.
Forde and McHugh (FM) had set up a retirement benefit scheme for the benefit of its employees and directors. Transfers of cash and treasury stock were made to the scheme when Mr McHugh was 54 years old. He had no vested interests in the assets of the scheme as FM had specified his retirement age to be 60. His entitlement was contingent as it may be defeated by death before retirement. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the transfers to the scheme were ‘earnings’.
The court first held that any double counting would be counterintuitive and could not be Parliament’s intention. Consequently ...
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:
