May 2019
« Jul    

Bray v Best; HL 1989

References: [1989] STC 159
Coram: Lord Oliver
There was not necessarily subsumed in the concession that a payment constituted an emolument from employment a conclusion that the payment must therefore be for a chargeable period within the aggregate period during which the employment subsisted. There was no basis for this conclusion in logic or authority. The period to which any given payment is to be attributed is a question to be determined as one of fact in each case, depending on all the circumstances, including its source and the intention of the payer.
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Sch E
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – RCI Europe Ltd v Kate Woods (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD (Times 09-Jan-04, Bailii, [2003] EWHC 3129 (Ch))
    The company made payments to a former director in return for a severance agreement which restricted his future business activities.
    Held: Despite the fact that all payments were made only after his employment had been terminated, they remained . .
  • Cited – Shilton v Wilmshurst HL ([1991] 1 AC 684)
    The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid £75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
    Held: The . .

Leave a Reply