header-logo header-logo

01 March 2013 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

istock_000012097953medium_1

Peter Vaines casts his eye over sham loans, the shortcomings of joint bank accounts from an inheritance tax perspective & discovery assessments

The recent case of Murray Group Holdings Limited v HMRC TC 2372 concerned the tax implications of a loan to an employee from an employee benefit trust (EBT). We all know what the implications of loans are now—complete catastrophe—but that was not the case before the introduction of Pt 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) in April 2011.

Rangers Football Club had an EBT and the trustees made loans to employees and their families. HMRC argued that the full amount of the loans was taxable as earnings in the hands of the employees.

As this case dealt with events prior to April 2011 and you cannot have loans anymore, this may seem to be of rather limited interest. However, it does expose aspects which have a much wider application.

HMRC said that these loans were shams (ie, they were not really loans; they were made

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll