header-logo header-logo

30 October 2014 / Francesca Kaye , Mary Hodgson
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The Taxman cometh

Francesca Kaye & Mary Hodgson discuss the important changes to capital gains tax and compensation payments

In the case of Zim Properties Ltd v Proctor [1985] STC 90, 58 TC 371, the court decided that the right to take court action for compensation or damages is treated as an intangible asset for capital gains tax (CGT)/corporation tax purposes. This does not, however, apply to rights pursuant to statute or contract.

All references to CGT in this article apply equally to corporation tax.

According to the decision in Zim, anyone receiving compensation or damages, whether pursuant to a court order or negotiated settlement is treated as disposing of that asset (the right to sue) and the sum received is the gain which attracts CGT.

The right to sue is treated as having no acquisition cost as there will not have been any expenditure involved in acquiring that right, and the entire amount of the compensation will therefore be taxable.

Extra statutory concession D33—Pre-January 2014

To counteract the effect of Zim,

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