In K (oao UBS AG) v HMRC and another [2024] UKUT 242 (TCC) (21 August) the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the company’s judicial review challenge to HMRC’s decision not to exercise its discretion under ITEPA 2003 s 684(7A) which would have relieved the company of its PAYE obligations in respect of income of a former employee JW from security options. The UT found that HMRC had misdirected themselves in law in making their decision and ordered that the decision be remade in the light of those findings.
In 2002 as part of his remuneration package JW and UBS entered into three gilt options. The options were not exercised until 2012 after JW held left the company and the gilts were not received until 2016/17 due to certain valuation issues. HMRC issued a determination under the...
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 K (oao UBS AG) v HMRC and another [2024] UKUT 242 (TCC) (21 August) the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the company’s judicial review challenge to HMRC’s decision not to exercise its discretion under ITEPA 2003 s 684(7A) which would have relieved the company of its PAYE obligations in respect of income of a former employee JW from security options. The UT found that HMRC had misdirected themselves in law in making their decision and ordered that the decision be remade in the light of those findings.
In 2002 as part of his remuneration package JW and UBS entered into three gilt options. The options were not exercised until 2012 after JW held left the company and the gilts were not received until 2016/17 due to certain valuation issues. HMRC issued a determination under the...
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: