header-logo header-logo

06 November 2014 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7629 / Categories: Features , Tax , Employment
printer mail-detail

Taxing times

keen_0

Spencer Keen outlines some valuable guidance about the tax treatment of termination payments

Mr Moorthy received a payment of £200,000 in a compromise agreement after he was made redundant from his employment as executive director of operations with Jacobs Engineering UK Ltd (Jacobs) on 12 March 2010. He claimed that the £200,000 was not taxable because it had been paid to settle a discrimination claim.

HM Revenue & Customs did not accept that the entire settlement was tax free. HMRC argued that, with the exception of £60,000, the whole sum was taxable as a termination payment under s 401 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions Act) 2003 (ITEPA 2003). HMRC accepted that £60,000 was exempt from tax because, according to them, £30,000 was specifically exempted as a result of s 403 of ITEPA 2003 and another £30,000 was exempted because it represented compensation for injury to feelings. As a result, on 13 August 2013 HMRC issued a closure notice indicating that Moorthy’s self-assessment had been amended to include £140,023 of taxable income. Moorthy

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll