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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll