In S Kutcha v HMRC (and related appeal) (TC02769 – 5 July) a company made payments to two sons of one of its directors (K) while they were at university. HMRC issued assessments on K charging tax on the basis that the payments were taxable benefits. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed K’s appeal holding that the payments were taxable by virtue of ITEPA 2003 s 212. (The tribunal also upheld determinations charging NIC.)
Why it matters: ITEPA 2003 s 212 provides that ‘a scholarship which is provided for a member of an employee’s family or household is to be regarded ... as provided by reason of the employment’ and as a taxable benefit. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that the effect of this provision was that the payments made to the director’s sons were taxable benefits.
...
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 S Kutcha v HMRC (and related appeal) (TC02769 – 5 July) a company made payments to two sons of one of its directors (K) while they were at university. HMRC issued assessments on K charging tax on the basis that the payments were taxable benefits. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed K’s appeal holding that the payments were taxable by virtue of ITEPA 2003 s 212. (The tribunal also upheld determinations charging NIC.)
Why it matters: ITEPA 2003 s 212 provides that ‘a scholarship which is provided for a member of an employee’s family or household is to be regarded ... as provided by reason of the employment’ and as a taxable benefit. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that the effect of this provision was that the payments made to the director’s sons were taxable benefits.
...
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:
