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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll