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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll