• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Supreme Court Decision - Share options and banker's bonuses

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Supreme Court Decision - Share options and banker's bonuses

    https://www.pumptax.com/wp-content/u...1-judgment.pdf

    Different area to contractor schemes, but looks like an important decision. Appeal allowed.

    #2
    Originally posted by Not Losing Any Sleep View Post
    Appeal allowed.
    Unfortunately, for the bankers, in favour of HMRC.

    Bankers' bonuses: Supreme Court sides with HMRC in appeal against UBS and Deutsche Bank, ruling out scheme designed to avoid income tax | City A.M.

    Comment


      #3
      Probably the banks and not the bankers will pay.

      Thus the bank's customers ultimately pay (or the shareholders).
      Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

      (No, me neither).

      Comment


        #4
        Also worth noting that this case started in 2004.

        It has taken 12 years to get this far and my sources tell me that DB may well go further yet with a case going to ECJ as apparently the sort of scheme seen here was good in Germany at the time.

        UBS of course have no such fall back unless that have some sort of parallel agreement with the EU.

        This is a complicated decision and whilst I expect the headline writers to grab the "HMRC Victory" angle, I'm not so sure that it means that much for contractor schemes (let's face it a win would have been better).

        As such I'm going to take my time and read the thing first before making public any thoughts.
        Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

        (No, me neither).

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by webberg View Post
          apparently the sort of scheme seen here was good in Germany at the time.
          No, this was a very contrived scheme to get around UK tax rules. It was a way of dressing up a bonus scheme as something else. It had absolutely nothing to do with anything being done in Germany (other than there being a German bonus scheme).

          Originally posted by webberg View Post
          DB may well go further yet with a case going to ECJ
          And pigs may fly.

          Originally posted by webberg View Post
          I'm not so sure that it means that much for contractor schemes
          The first part of the para 97 of the judgement would be worrying reading for employees who got loans (e.g. Murray Group):

          Originally posted by Lord Reed
          It may well be that, in an appropriate case, the statutory term “money”, construed purposively, might apply to arrangements which, viewed realistically, were no more than disguised or artificially contrived methods of paying cash to employees.
          Although "money" is not relevant (in terms of income) to the self-employed, the message underlying the case is very clear.

          Comment


            #6
            [QUOTE=Iliketax;2221272]No, this was a very contrived scheme to get around UK tax rules. It was a way of dressing up a bonus scheme as something else. It had absolutely nothing to do with anything being done in Germany (other than there being a German bonus scheme).

            And pigs may fly.
            The first part of the para 97 of the judgement would be worrying reading for employees who got loans (e.g. Murray Group):


            Worth listening to. The will of parliament etc.

            Bankers' bonus tax avoidance schemes named them after Houdini are illegal | Daily Mail Online

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Not Losing Any Sleep View Post
              Definitely. Especially if you listen to it with "shares" replaced by "loan" and "company" replaced by "trust".

              Comment


                #8
                The courts seem to have changed their approach to tax avoidance cases in recent years.

                There's a lot more use of the purposive than the literal.

                Direct political interference? Probably not. More likely they are just reflecting public opinion which, of course, has been whipped up by politicians. The Justice System, which is paid for by taxes, has also faced severe cuts in recent years. The legal aid budget has been slashed. Courts are closing. Jobs have been lost, pay frozen.

                UK judges disillusioned after drop in pay and conditions, survey finds | Law | The Guardian

                I wonder whether some of the decisions we're seeing now, in favour of HMRC, would have gone a different way 10 years ago.
                Last edited by DonkeyRhubarb; 10 March 2016, 08:27.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Doesn't matter but one way or another seems like courts are aligned with HMRC's view. Whatever be the reason, whether we like it or not, we need to make decision based on all the information available. Until before this decision things were different but now I am not of the view that courts will help us. And if courts are with HMRC I don't understand how Big Group can motivate HMRC to change analysis.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by StrengthInNumbers View Post
                    Doesn't matter but one way or another seems like courts are aligned with HMRC's view. Whatever be the reason, whether we like it or not, we need to make decision based on all the information available. Until before this decision things were different but now I am not of the view that courts will help us. And if courts are with HMRC I don't understand how Big Group can motivate HMRC to change analysis.
                    The share option scheme judgement does not necessarily apply to other areas of the law - I'm sure this was part of an employees remuneration package.

                    Not only does the case involve banks, the largest hate target for a generation, but HMRC and the Courts know that the banks involved have got plenty of cash. All win for everyone involved.

                    Whereas individuals do not have the same resources so many are facing insolvency.

                    Even the most ardent to HMRC supporters are of the view that collecting a percentage of the tax they want as a certainty is better than years in court. Even then, HMRC will not be able to collect all the money from many individuals as they simply don't have the resources available - and bankruptcy won't get them anything either.

                    As one of the HMRC officers told us about the impending bankruptcy... "it's fully deserved".
                    Clearly no money spent on training at the charm school.

                    BG is helping many people stuck at the end of appalling treatment by HMRC. Treatment that is against their own charter and may well be illegal.
                    BG can at least campaign for a humane settlement, even if it can't fight retrospective interpretation of the law.
                    Join Big Group - don't let them get away with it
                    http://www.wttbiggroup.co.uk/

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X