What are the Tax Implications of Settling an Employment Tribunal Claim?

20th May 2022 By

When paying money to settle Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, employers are not infrequently motivated by a desire to make what they perceive as a nuisance go away – but how should such payments be treated for tax purposes? The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) tackled that thorny issue in a guideline case.

A senior bank employee was dismissed following a regulator’s investigation into an aspect of the bank’s business. She asserted that she had been made a scapegoat and thrown under a bus by a white male cartel at the bank. She lodged a number of complaints with an ET and, about a year after her employment was terminated, the bank settled her claim for £6 million. More than £2.6 million of that sum was deducted at source by the bank under the PAYE system.

She sought repayment of the latter sum, but HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) asserted that all but £44,000 of the settlement figure had been correctly charged to Income Tax. Citing Section 401(1) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, it said that she had received the money indirectly in consequence of, or otherwise in connection with, the termination of her employment.

Challenging that decision, the woman contended that the settlement in large part reflected the strength of her moral, rather than legal, claim against the bank. So far as the bank was concerned, her claim had a nuisance value in that she had a story to tell about her treatment to the court of public opinion. The bank had a powerful public relations motive for settling the matter privately and, on that basis, the woman argued that any relationship between her dismissal and the settlement payment was coincidental.

The sum that she received did not appear as a termination payment in the bank’s accounts. Many of her complaints, particularly of discrimination, related to events some time prior to the termination of her employment. She also pointed to the lapse of time between her dismissal and the settlement agreement.

In rejecting her appeal, however, the FTT noted that, prior to her dismissal, she had shown deep reluctance to formally pursue a discrimination claim against the bank. The termination of her employment was the triggering event and catalyst for the employment proceedings and, in turn, the settlement payment.

It was her dismissal that enabled her to pursue a highly effective bargaining position vis-à-vis the bank. After positioning herself as a nuisance, she was able to negotiate the settlement payment as the price to make her go away. Such a negotiating stance would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to adopt had her employment not been terminated. The statutory test was therefore met and the settlement payment was properly taxed.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Inheritance – Daughter's Lies Trigger Rare Finding of Fraudulent Calumny

22nd June, 2022 By

Sick and vulnerable people can be prone to the malign, even fraudulent, influence of relatives or others who are intent on maximising their inheritance. However, as a High Court case showed, such conduct is unlikely to go undetected. The case concerned a man who was suffering from leukaemia when he died at the age of 92. Less than a month before he passed away, he made a will by which he bequeathed almost the whole of his estate to his daughter and her partner. He left only his cars and...

What is an 'Annoyance'? High Court Defines the Correct Legal Test

16th June, 2022 By

Restrictive covenants that forbid property owners from causing annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to their neighbours commonly appear in title deeds – but how are they to be interpreted? In the context of a dispute between residents of a housing estate, the High Court gave authoritative guidance on that issue. Properties on the estate were subject to a covenant prohibiting their owners from doing anything that would or might be, or grow to be, an annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to other residents. Despite opposition from their neighbours, a couple who lived...

Double Taxation Treaties – Wealthy South African Relieved of £10 Million Bill

13th June, 2022 By

Rich individuals often have their feet firmly planted in more than one country and that can give rise to disputes as to where they should be taxed. In a guideline case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) considered the position of an extremely wealthy man with extensive ties to both the UK and the Republic of South Africa. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) argued that the man was liable for Income Tax in respect of more than £20 million that he received from a family trust during five tax years. He asserted...

Family Judge Labours to Achieve Fairness Between Debt-Laden Divorcees

10th June, 2022 By

So-called 'big money' divorces may grab the headlines, but lower-value disputes can often be the hardest to resolve. In a case on point, a family judge laboured to meet the reasonable needs of a divorcing couple whose debts far exceeded their modest savings. The couple's marriage lasted almost 30 years, yielding three children who had grown to adulthood. Whilst the wife worked full time, the father's primary role was that of a stay-at-home parent, looking after the home and children. They lived in a housing association property and, although they...