In Mark Allan v HMRC [2015 UKUT 0016 (23 January 2015) the UT found that the FTT had been right to find that a case had no prospect of success.
The company of which Mr Allan was a shareholder and director had set up a pension scheme and had made a non-cash contribution (in the form of treasury stock) to the scheme for the benefit of Mr Allan. Mr Allan had filed his tax return on the basis that the contribution by his employer did not give rise to a charge to income tax under ITEPA 2003 s 386 because the treasury stocks were non-cash assets and therefore not ‘a sum paid’.
Since then the Court of Appeal in Irving [2008] EWCA Civ 6 had determined that point of construction against Mr Allan’s interpretation. While accepting that Irving was binding on the UT...
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 Mark Allan v HMRC [2015 UKUT 0016 (23 January 2015) the UT found that the FTT had been right to find that a case had no prospect of success.
The company of which Mr Allan was a shareholder and director had set up a pension scheme and had made a non-cash contribution (in the form of treasury stock) to the scheme for the benefit of Mr Allan. Mr Allan had filed his tax return on the basis that the contribution by his employer did not give rise to a charge to income tax under ITEPA 2003 s 386 because the treasury stocks were non-cash assets and therefore not ‘a sum paid’.
Since then the Court of Appeal in Irving [2008] EWCA Civ 6 had determined that point of construction against Mr Allan’s interpretation. While accepting that Irving was binding on the UT...
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:
