header-logo header-logo

04 April 2012 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Taxing times

Peter Vaines rounds up the latest developments in the world of tax

Previously I made reference to the case of HMRC v P A Holdings Limited (see 160 NLJ 7398 & 7399, p 22) and I make no apology in returning to this really important matter, having regard to the recent Court of Appeal judgment ([2011] EWCA CIV 1414).

HMRC v P A Holdings Ltd

The facts were quite complicated, but in essence, some employees acquired shares in a company connected with their employer. In principle, the receipt of the shares by the employees would represent taxable earnings.
 
The issue was the tax treatment of the dividends subsequently paid by the company on those shares. HMRC argued that the dividends derived from the employment and should, therefore, be taxed as earnings. 

The First-tier Tribunal found that the dividends were correctly categorised as dividends. They also found that they could be treated as earnings, but that did not stop them being dividends. 

Taxing dividends

So, if they were dividends and
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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll