ARTICLE
11 June 2012

Bonuses Paid As Dividends From A Subsidiary Held To Be Subject To Income Tax As Earnings

AG
Addleshaw Goddard

Contributor

Addleshaw Goddard is an international law firm, almost 250 years in the making. We're trusted by over 5000 organisations, including 50 FTSE 100 companies, to solve problems, deliver deals, defend rights, comply with regulations and mitigate risk. Our work spans more than 50 areas of business law for clients across multiple industries in over 100 countries worldwide. And while the challenges our clients bring us may vary, we approach and solve them with the same, single-minded focus: finding the smartest way to achieve the biggest impact.

Bonuses paid to directors of a company (in the tax year 2004-05) which were structured as dividends under an avoidance scheme have been held by the First-tier Tribunal to be employment income and subject to income tax and NICs - Manthorpe Building Products Limited v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 82 (TC).
United Kingdom Tax

Bonuses paid to directors of a company (in the tax year 2004-05) which were structured as dividends under an avoidance scheme have been held by the First-tier Tribunal to be employment income and subject to income tax and NICs - Manthorpe Building Products Limited v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 82 (TC).

In this case, the company conceded that the payments were remuneration but argued that the priority provision in section 20(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 applied, so that the payments could only be taxed as dividends. However, following the recent Court of Appeal's decision in HM Revenue and Customs v PA Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1414, the tribunal found in HMRC's favour.

The PA Holdings Ltd case held that section 20(2) did not apply where bonuses were structured as dividends, as only the income tax schedule most applicable to the source of the payments applied, which in this case was that for employment income. Since only one schedule applied (rather than the employment income schedule and the dividend income schedule), the statutory priority rule was irrelevant.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More