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

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
back-to-top-scroll