header-logo header-logo

07 July 2017
Issue: 7753 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

One-nil to HM Revenue & Customs

​Taxable income includes money paid to employee or a third party, including a trustee

The liquidators of RFC2012, formerly known as Rangers Football Club, have lost their long-running battle with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) at the Supreme Court.

Five Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal by the liquidators over a controversial tax avoidance scheme.

The owners of the famous club, once home to Paul Gascoigne (Gazza), Ally McCoist, Graeme Souness and Lee McCulloch, went into liquidation in 2012. Rangers is now owned by a different company.

Under its former owner Sir David Murray’s Murray Group Management, it gave more than 80 employees more than £47m worth of tax-free loans from off-shore trusts known as Employee Benefit Trusts between 2001 and 2010.

The trust fund would be held for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the sub-trust, who were specified members of the employee’s family. The employee could obtain loans from the sub-trust worth more than if they had been paid through the payroll. Although the loans were repayable, they would be continually renewed until the employee died. Then, the loans and accrued interest would be paid out of their estate, thus reducing their inheritance tax liability.

In 2010, HMRC argued the loans should be classed as earnings and issued a demand for income tax and national insurance contributions.

Delivering the lead judgment in RFC2012 Plc (in liquidation) (formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 45, Lord Hodge said: ‘The central issue in this appeal is whether it is necessary that the employee himself or herself should receive, or at least be entitled to receive, the remuneration for his or her work in order for that reward to amount to taxable emoluments.’

He held that taxable income included money paid to the employee or a third party, including a trustee. However, there are exceptions, including: the taxation of perquisites; where the employer uses the money to give a benefit in kind which is not earnings or emoluments; and an arrangement by which the employer’s payment does not give the intended recipient an immediate vested beneficial interest but only a contingent interest.

Issue: 7753 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal expands Midlands residential development team

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn adds employee benefits and executive compensation practice in London with partner Richard Surtees

Laytons ETL—Alec Cameron

Laytons ETL—Alec Cameron

Laytons ETL appoints new partner and head of intellectual property disputes

NEWS
A series of recent decisions has clarified important principles across property law, from perpetuities to lease renewals and public rights over land
Employers cannot rely on wellbeing services alone to defend workplace stress claims after a High Court decision awarding almost £1m to an overworked employee
Andy Burnham's brand of 'Manchesterism' could offer fresh thinking on legal aid and access to justice if it reaches Westminster, according to Roger Smith, NLJ columnist and former director of JUSTICE
The constitutional fallout from a change of prime minister, rather than the politics, is under scrutiny as questions arise over the limits of executive authority in a leadership transition
The legal profession is undergoing a fundamental shift from selling services to creating technology-enabled products, according to Professor Luke Mason, Head of School of Law at Regent's University London
back-to-top-scroll