Broader interpretation of disguised remuneration code
In Strategic Branding v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 474 (TC)(1 December 2021) the FTT dismissed the taxpayer's appeal and held that contributions to a remuneration trust were not deductible and amounts loaned were not earnings but were taxable under ITEPA 2003 Part 7A. This is another case involving a complex remuneration trust structure. The arrangements were broadly similar to those in the recent Marlborough case but the conclusions reached by the two tribunals were very different. In the earlier case it was held that the amounts involved were not employment income but had the character of distributions. Here the conclusion was that there was an employment income charge; not on basic principles but under the disguised remuneration legislation. The different decisions are attributable partly to the strength of the witness evidence (the taxpayer in this case did not make a good impression) partly to...
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:
Broader interpretation of disguised remuneration code
In Strategic Branding v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 474 (TC)(1 December 2021) the FTT dismissed the taxpayer's appeal and held that contributions to a remuneration trust were not deductible and amounts loaned were not earnings but were taxable under ITEPA 2003 Part 7A. This is another case involving a complex remuneration trust structure. The arrangements were broadly similar to those in the recent Marlborough case but the conclusions reached by the two tribunals were very different. In the earlier case it was held that the amounts involved were not employment income but had the character of distributions. Here the conclusion was that there was an employment income charge; not on basic principles but under the disguised remuneration legislation. The different decisions are attributable partly to the strength of the witness evidence (the taxpayer in this case did not make a good impression) partly to...
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:
