AH v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (TC): [2019] UKUT 5 (AAC)

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Wikeley on 9 January 2019

Read the full decision in CTC/648/2018.

Judicial Summary

The Appellant compromised ET proceedings brought against his employer for £16,000. The original plan was for one-off lump sum payment of £16,000. However, under the final COT3 agreement the payments actually made under contract of empoyment through the employer’s payroll. HMRC treated sums as income for tax credit assessment purposes. Whether payments employment income or capital? Hochstrasser v Mayes [1960] A.C. 376, Shilton v Wilmhurst [1991] 1 A.C. 684 and Kuehne and Nagel Drinks Logistics Ltd v Commissioner for HMRC [2012] EWCA Civ 34; [2012] STC 840 all considered on meaning of employment income. Snook v. London & West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786 and Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41; [2011] ICR 1157 considered on interpretation of contracts and shams.

Published 22 February 2019