header-logo header-logo

09 July 2010
Issue: 7425 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Tax

Gripple Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2010] EWHC 1609 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 263 (Jun)

The purpose of para 5(2) of Schedule 20 to the Finance Act 2000  was not to expand the meaning of “staffing costs”, which had already been exhaustively defined in para 5(1), but rather to explain which staffing costs were to be treated as “attributable to relevant research and development”.

Paragraph 5(2) set out the circumstances in which expenditure attributable to research and development was to be treated as attributable to staffing costs, namely when it was “paid to, or in respect of, directors or employees directly and actively engaged in such research and development”.
 

 

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

EIP—Stuart Malcolm

EIP—Stuart Malcolm

EIP strengthens Commercial practice with a new partner

Ellisons—Francesca Brown

Ellisons—Francesca Brown

Ellisons welcomes Francesca Brown to Family team

Shakespeare Martineau—Marie Bourke

Shakespeare Martineau—Marie Bourke

Shakespeare Martineau strengthens Sheffield regulatory practice with new hires

NEWS
A wide-ranging Civil Way column highlights developments from insolvency procedure to employment law, but one case stands out for its lessons on bankruptcy, family homes and digital communications
A sprawling Intellectual Property Office battle between House of Fraser and Frasers Property has delivered a masterclass in modern trade mark law
Courts in England and Wales and Singapore are increasingly confronting complex disputes over international child relocation as families become more globally mobile
The government’s long-awaited family law reform consultation could mark a turning point for domestic abuse victims navigating financial remedy proceedings, but significant challenges remain
A new commercial court pilot giving the public access to documents used in hearings, including expert reports, is raising difficult questions about transparency and privacy
back-to-top-scroll