header-logo header-logo

23 October 2014
Issue: 7627 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Income tax

Martin v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] UKUT 429 (TCC), [2014] All ER (D) 01 (Oct)

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on the liability of the taxpayer under his contract of employment to refund a proportion of a taxable signing bonus when he had given notice to resign prior to the end of the period for which the employee had committed to remain an employee. It held, inter alia, that a payment which had been made by an employee could be brought into account in determining taxable earnings only where the same payment, made prior to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, would have been brought into account in determining the amount of taxable emoluments.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The government has pledged to ‘move fast’ to protect children from harm caused by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, and could impose limits on social media as early as the summer
All eyes will be on the Court of Appeal (or its YouTube livestream) next week as it sits to consider the controversial Mazur judgment
An NHS Foundation Trust breached a consultant’s contract by delegating an investigation into his knowledge of nurse Lucy Letby’s case
Draft guidance for schools on how to support gender-questioning pupils provides ‘more clarity’, but headteachers may still need legal advice, an education lawyer has said
Litigation funder Innsworth Capital, which funded behemoth opt-out action Merricks v Mastercard, can bring a judicial review, the High Court ruled last week
back-to-top-scroll