In Philip Boyle v HMRC (TC03103 – 29 November 2013) Mr Boyle had been granted loans by his employer in rapidly depreciating currencies. Arrangement with Credex a company connected with his employer ensured that Mr Boyle effectively received English Pounds.
The first issue was whether the monies paid to Mr Boyle under the loans should be taxable as emoluments under ICTA 1988 s 160. The FTT noted that Mr Boyle was not a ‘straightforward’ witness and that he must have been aware of the tax advantages triggered by the loans. He also must have known that he would not have to repay the loans. He effectively turned a ‘blind eye’.
Referring to tax avoidance case law the tribunal determined that a ‘realistic view’ should be adopted when determining whether a loan was an emolument. The tribunal held that the loans were not genuine....
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 Philip Boyle v HMRC (TC03103 – 29 November 2013) Mr Boyle had been granted loans by his employer in rapidly depreciating currencies. Arrangement with Credex a company connected with his employer ensured that Mr Boyle effectively received English Pounds.
The first issue was whether the monies paid to Mr Boyle under the loans should be taxable as emoluments under ICTA 1988 s 160. The FTT noted that Mr Boyle was not a ‘straightforward’ witness and that he must have been aware of the tax advantages triggered by the loans. He also must have known that he would not have to repay the loans. He effectively turned a ‘blind eye’.
Referring to tax avoidance case law the tribunal determined that a ‘realistic view’ should be adopted when determining whether a loan was an emolument. The tribunal held that the loans were not genuine....
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:
