Boyle v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 723 (TC) (29 November 2013)

Boyle v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 723 (TC) (29 November 2013)

The Tribunal found that the so-called loans received by Mr Boyle were in substance employment income and not genuine loans. The arrangements were artificial and designed to avoid tax. Mr Boyle was liable to income tax on the full amounts received as employment income. The employer, SCL, had no UK tax presence and was not required to operate PAYE, so Mr Boyle was not entitled to PAYE credit. The discovery assessments were valid as HMRC could not reasonably have been aware of the under-assessment based on the information available at the relevant times.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 723 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Philip Boyle; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Income, PAYE, Discovery Assessment, Tax Avoidance, Transfer of Assets Abroad
Tax Law Employment Income PAYE Discovery Assessment Tax Avoidance Transfer of Assets Abroad

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Boyle

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Boyle is liable to income tax on purported loans as employment income
  2. 2 Whether Mr Boyle is entitled to credit for income tax that ought to have been deducted by the employer under PAYE
  3. 3 Whether Mr Boyle is liable to income tax under transfer of assets provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the so-called loans received by Mr Boyle were in substance employment income and not genuine loans. The arrangements were artificial and designed to avoid tax. Mr Boyle was liable to income tax on the full amounts received as employment income. The employer, SCL, had no UK tax presence and was not required to operate PAYE, so Mr Boyle was not entitled to PAYE credit. The discovery assessments were valid as HMRC could not reasonably have been aware of the under-assessment based on the information available at the relevant times.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Boyle is liable to income tax on the amounts assessed as employment income for the relevant years.
  • No credit is due for PAYE not deducted by SCL.