In LM Ferro Ltd v HMRC (TC02853 – 5 September) a company (L) which operated a pharmacy entered into a scheme intended to take advantage of the ‘restricted securities’ provisions of ITEPA 2003 s 423 and pay its controlling director (F) £300 000 without accounting for PAYE or NIC. HMRC issued determinations charging PAYE and NIC on the basis that the scheme was ineffective and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed L’s appeal specifically distinguishing the Upper Tribunal decision in UBS AG v HMRC (No. 2) [2013] STC 68. Judge Raghavan observed that ‘whether the shares were “restricted securities” is not directly in point as the issue this case turns on is whether the award of bonus is to be regarded as falling within the “money” exclusion to Part 7 in s 420(5)(b) such that Part 7 does not apply’. He held that...
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 LM Ferro Ltd v HMRC (TC02853 – 5 September) a company (L) which operated a pharmacy entered into a scheme intended to take advantage of the ‘restricted securities’ provisions of ITEPA 2003 s 423 and pay its controlling director (F) £300 000 without accounting for PAYE or NIC. HMRC issued determinations charging PAYE and NIC on the basis that the scheme was ineffective and the First-tier Tribunal dismissed L’s appeal specifically distinguishing the Upper Tribunal decision in UBS AG v HMRC (No. 2) [2013] STC 68. Judge Raghavan observed that ‘whether the shares were “restricted securities” is not directly in point as the issue this case turns on is whether the award of bonus is to be regarded as falling within the “money” exclusion to Part 7 in s 420(5)(b) such that Part 7 does not apply’. He held that...
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:
