header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 April 2012 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Taxing times

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll