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

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

Commercial property and child law teams expand with senior hires

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Set expands London and Singapore offering with senior international disputes hires

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Firm strengthens real estate and litigation teams with partner promotions

NEWS
Uber has built a formidable strategy for insulating itself from liability for drivers’ conduct, but the legal terrain differs sharply between the US and England and Wales
The Civil Justice Council’s review of Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 could mark the end of what one commentator calls an ‘outdated’ and overly technical regime governing solicitor-client fee disputes
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 marks a constitutional watershed by severing the centuries-old link between hereditary titles and automatic membership of the upper chamber
Artificial intelligence, proportionality and public decision-making are under increasing judicial scrutiny, according to the latest public law round-up from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
Families relying on informal agreements over property ownership could face costly consequences if disputes arise, the High Court has warned
back-to-top-scroll