Ballard v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 87 (TC) (31 January 2013)

Ballard v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 87 (TC) (31 January 2013)

The payment to the appellant was made after his retirement, as he had permanently left employment and decided not to seek further work, and was in connection with past service. Therefore, it was a 'relevant benefit' under section 393B(1)(c) ITEPA 2003, taxable under section 394 ITEPA and eligible for Schedule 36...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 87 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: George Frederick Ballard; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Redundancy Payments, Employer Financed Retirement Benefits Scheme (furbs), Relevant Benefits, Section 393 B ITEPA 2003, Section 401 ITEPA 2003, Schedule 36 Finance Act 2004
Tax Law Employment Law Income Tax Redundancy Payments Employer Financed Retirement Benefits Scheme (furbs) Relevant Benefits Section 393 B ITEPA 2003 Section 401 ITEPA 2003 +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Frederick Ballard

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the payment from the employer's profit sharing scheme to the appellant on redundancy was a 'relevant benefit' under section 393B(1)(c) or (d) ITEPA 2003
  2. 2 Whether the payment was taxable under section 394 ITEPA 2003 and eligible for transitional relief under Schedule 36 Finance Act 2004, or taxable under section 401 ITEPA 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The payment to the appellant was made after his retirement, as he had permanently left employment and decided not to seek further work, and was in connection with past service. Therefore, it was a 'relevant benefit' under section 393B(1)(c) ITEPA 2003, taxable under section 394 ITEPA and eligible for Schedule 36 relief. The existence of redundancy does not preclude the payment from being in connection with retirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Assessment under section 401 ITEPA 2003 set aside
  • Payment to be treated as a relevant benefit under section 393B(1)(c) ITEPA 2003