No tax relief on pension contributions paid in shares – Wilberforce Chambers

Posted May 29th, 2020 in income tax, news, pensions, shareholders by sally

‘In a decision which threatens to bring turmoil to vast number of SIPPs (self-invested personal pensions), the Upper Tribunal has decided in HMRC v Sippchoice Ltd [2020] UKUT 149 (TCC) (Roth J and Upper Tribunal Judge Greg Sinfield) that member contributions to registered pension schemes are only eligible for tax relief where they are paid in money. Where a member transfers shares to the scheme trustees no tax relief is available, even where done in satisfaction of a money debt, and notwithstanding the terms of HRMC’s own Pensions Tax Manual which appears to say the opposite.’

Full Story

Wilberforce Chambers, 18th May 2020

Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk

New Judgment: Fowler v Commissioners for HMRC [2020] UKSC 22 – UKSC Blog

Posted May 27th, 2020 in double taxation, income tax, news, self-employment, Supreme Court, treaties by sally

‘Mr Fowler is a qualified diver who is resident in the Republic of South Africa. During the 2011/12 and 2012/13 tax years he undertook diving engagements in the waters of the UK’s continental shelf. HMRC stated that he is liable to pay UK income tax for this period. Whether he is liable depends on the application of a Double Taxation Treaty between the UK and South Africa. Article 7 of the Treaty provides that self-employed persons are taxed only where they are resident (i.e. South Africa), whereas article 14 provides that employees may be taxed where they work (i.e. the UK). For the purposes of this appeal, the parties have assumed that Mr Fowler was an employee. Mr Fowler claims he is nevertheless not liable to pay tax in the UK. His case centres on a “deeming provision” in section 15 of the UK’s Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (“ITTOIA”). This provides that an employed seabed diver is “treated” as self-employed for the purposes of UK income tax.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 26th May 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Matalan founder suing PwC for ‘ineffective tax avoidance advice’ – The Guardian

Posted May 21st, 2020 in accountants, capital gains tax, income tax, negligence, news, tax avoidance by sally

‘The multimillionaire founder of Matalan is suing his accountants for allegedly giving him ineffective tax avoidance advice – weeks after his retail empire received tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer support during the Covid-19 pandemic.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 20th May 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Foreign statutory schemes – can they register as a registered pension scheme? – Wilberforce Chambers

Posted December 4th, 2019 in EC law, income tax, news, pensions by sally

‘The regime for registered pension schemes, which was first established with effect from A-Day (6 April 2006), is renowned for a number of things. One of those things is the expansion of the categories of person who can establish a pension scheme. However, as a recent case shows, the legislation contains anomalies.’

Full Story

Wilberforce Chambers, 24th November 2019

Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk

New Judgment: R (Derry) v Commissioners for HMRC [2019] UKSC 19 – UKSC Blog

Posted April 11th, 2019 in income tax, news, shareholders, statutory interpretation, Supreme Court by sally

‘This appeal considered the correct procedure HMRC is required to follow under the Taxes Management Act 1970, where it wishes to enquire into a claim for carry-back share loss relief made in a self-assessed and calculated tax return.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 10th April 2019

Source: ukscblog.com

Lorraine Kelly wins £1.2m tax case against HMRC over ITV work – BBC News

‘Lorraine Kelly has won a row over a £1.2m tax bill, after a judge ruled she was not employed by ITV, but performs as her “chatty” TV persona.’

Full Story

BBC News, 21st March 2019

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Supreme Court: income tax must be deducted from creditor interest – OUT-LAW.com

‘Income tax must be deducted before administrators can pay out statutory interest to the creditors of an insolvent company, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 14th March 2019

Source: www.out-law.com

Home Office ‘wrecked my life’ with misuse of immigration law – The Guardian

Posted February 4th, 2019 in immigration, income tax, mistake, news, taxation, terrorism by sally

‘The Home Office has been accused of inflicting irreversible damage on the life of a pharmaceutical expert by misusing a controversial clause in immigration law to try to force her out of the UK.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 2nd February 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

A life ‘completely destroyed’ by one paragraph of immigration law – The Guardian

Posted May 21st, 2018 in immigration, income tax, news by sally

‘Paragraph 322(5) has devastating conditions, as Sidharth Vijay found when he made a simple correction to his tax return.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 20th May 2018

Source: www.theguardian.com

Taxpayers who miss tax return deadline due to depression ‘less likely to be fined than ever’ – Daily Telegraph

Posted January 31st, 2018 in fines, income tax, mental health, news, time limits by sally

‘Taxpayers suffering from depression are being treated with increasing leniency by HMRC if they file a late tax return.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 30th January 2018

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Treasury replaces tax return fines with points-type system – The Guardian

Posted November 24th, 2017 in income tax, news, penalties, time limits by tracey

‘The £100 immediate fine for filing a late tax return will be replaced by a driving licence-style points system. The change will come as part of a series of Treasury reforms which aim to concentrate on serious tax avoidance and not punish taxpayers who make simple errors.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 24th November 2017

Source: www.theguardian.com

Court of Appeal: HMRC did not act unfairly in withdrawing guidance only for taxpayers with ‘open’ affairs – OUT-LAW.com

‘HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) could withdraw previous guidance in relation to losses arising from the exercise of share options, even though other taxpayers whose affairs could not be reopened had benefited from the treatment, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Harry Potter actor Rupert Grint loses £1m tax refund case – The Guardian

Posted August 10th, 2016 in appeals, HM Revenue & Customs, income tax, news, taxation by tracey

‘Harry Potter star Rupert Grint has lost his legal battle for a £1m tax refund. A tax tribunal judge rejected the actor’s appeal against an HM Revenue and Customs block on him using a change in accounting dates to shield his earnings from the higher 50% tax rate.’

Full story

The Guardian, 9th August 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Hargreaves v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, HM Revenue & Customs, income tax, law reports, taxation by sally

Hargreaves v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] EWCA Civ 174

‘The taxpayer stated on his self-assessment tax return that he was to be regarded as provisionally non-resident and not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom with effect from a certain date. The revenue issued a discovery assessment against him under section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 on the basis that he was not entitled to be treated as neither resident nor ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes as he had not taken sufficient steps to become non-resident. The taxpayer appealed, first, against the contention that he was not in fact resident or ordinarily resident here, and, second, against the discovery assessment, alleging that it had been made without the revenue having any power to do so and therefore was invalid. He applied for a direction that the second issue be heard as a preliminary issue on the basis that he wanted to be able to elect not to give evidence until the revenue had proved its case on the relevant conditions in section 29(3). The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the application, determining that he had no right to require the revenue to establish at a separate preliminary hearing against the discovery assessment the matters which under section 29 the revenue should establish to show that the discovery assessment was validly made and that while it had a discretion to order a separate preliminary trial, it would not do so. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, concluding that the taxpayer did not have any relevant right to a preliminary hearing and that it was possible to have a single hearing even though there were different burdens of proof on the two issues in the present case and that it would need to hear evidence on the issues together.’

WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Apollo Fuels Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Apollo Fuels Ltd and others; [2016] EWCA Civ 157

‘The employers leased cars to their employees to enable them to carry out their duties. The cars were leased on arm’s length commercial terms, including lease charges at full market value. The revenue concluded that the provision of the cars was a taxable benefit, for the purposes of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, and served notices of assessment for that tax on the employees. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the employees’ appeal, holding that the provision of the cars was a “benefit” which fell within section 114 of the 2003 Act with the result that Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the 2003 Act applied. That decision was affirmed by the Upper Tribunal.’

WLR Daily, 17th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

UBS AG v Revenue and Customs Comrs; DB Group Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted March 15th, 2016 in appeals, banking, employment, forfeiture, income tax, law reports by sally

UBS AG v Revenue and Customs Comrs; DB Group Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2016] UKSC 13

‘In 2004 two banks entered into arrangements designed to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the lncome Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as substituted, which created a special regime for employment-related securities whereby “restricted securities” (including, by section 423(2), shares which were subject to a condition providing for their forfeiture in certain circumstances so as to render their market value less than it otherwise would be but for that condition) were, by section 425(2) and 429, exempt from income tax. Each bank invoked a scheme whereby (i) it set up a company merely for the purposes of the scheme, which undertook no activities beyond its participation in the scheme, was to be liquidated upon the termination of the scheme, and the memorandum and articles of which contained conditions designed to comply with Chapter 2, and (ii) the shares of the company were to be allocated to specified employees in lieu of a cash bonus. In the first case there was a condition for an immediate and automatic sale of the shares if, on any date during a specified three week period, the closing value of the FTSE 100 Index exceeded a defined “trigger level”, the probability of which was unlikely but in any event was hedged against so that in the event of a forced sale the employees would not be materially worse off. In the second case there was a provision which, in effect, provided that an employee would forfeit his shares if he voluntarily resigned or was dismissed for misconduct during the first eight weeks after the company was set up. In both cases, once the exemptions from income tax conferred by sections 425(2) and 429 had accrued, the shares were redeemable by the employees for cash. The revenue took the view that the banks were to be treated as having paid the relevant employees cash sums equal to their share allocation and issued PAYE determinations and NIC decisions against each bank, as the body liable to deduct such sums. Each bank appealed. The First-tier Tribunal, in separate decisions, held that Parliament could not have intended that the exemption should apply to arrangements contrived purely in order to obtain the exemption but having no other business or commercial purpose. On appeals heard together the Upper Tribunal held that the scheme in the first case met the requirements of the legislation and so allowed that bank’s appeal, but held that the scheme in the second case did not fully comply with the terms of Chapter 2 in that, on the facts, the company had been set up in a way which did not comply with section 429. On appeal by the revenue in the first case and by the bank in the second case, the Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision in the first case on like ground and, having reversed the factual finding in the second case, allowed that bank’s appeal on the ground that its scheme also met the requirements of Chapter 2.’

WLR Daily, 9th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Tribunal dismisses challenge to tax charge resulting from use of ‘pension liberation’ scheme – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 14th, 2016 in income tax, news, pensions, taxation, tribunals by sally

‘Money advanced in the form of a “loan” to the member of a so-called ‘pension liberation’ scheme was a “payment” for the purposes of the tax rules, and therefore subject to a 40% income tax charge and additional surcharge, a tax tribunal has ruled.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 13th January 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

R (Derry) v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted September 16th, 2015 in HM Revenue & Customs, income tax, judicial review, law reports, taxation, tribunals by tracey

R (Derry) v Revenue and Customs Comrs: [2015] UKUT 0416 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 379

‘Sections 132 and 133 of the Income Tax Act 2007 were consistent with paragraph 2 of Schedule 1B to the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the two sets of provisions could operate in conjunction.’

WLR Daily, 28th July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Rowe and others) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Posted August 27th, 2015 in human rights, income tax, law reports, notification, partnerships, ultra vires by sally

Regina (Rowe and others) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 369

‘Partner payment notices issued by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners under paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 32 to the Finance Act 2014 were not unlawful.’

WLR Daily, 31st July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Family Law Week’s Budget Briefing, July 2015 – Family Law Week

‘Richard Holme, Chartered Accountant of Creaseys, a firm which specialises in advising family lawyers on tax related family law issues, explains the Budget changes of most relevance to family lawyers.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 8th July 2015

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk