What is the Tax Status of Compensation for Financial Product Mis-Selling?

7th February 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Is compensation paid to individuals whose businesses have failed due to mis-selling of financial products subject to Income Tax? In a decision that will disappoint many victims of bank wrongdoing, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has answered that question in the affirmative.

The case concerned seven brothers whose property letting business had been mis-sold interest rate hedging products (IRHPs). The business subsequently failed, allegedly due to the high interest rates imposed by the IRHPs. After they lodged complaints, the relevant bank paid them basic compensation totalling almost £360,000. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) took the view that the payments were taxable and raised demands against the brothers, totalling over £43,000.

In challenging the demands, the brothers argued that the compensation had not been paid in respect of the business’s lost profits, but in recognition of the bank’s wrongdoing. The cause of the compensation was the mis-selling and the sums received should be viewed as non-taxable capital, rather than income.

In rejecting their appeal, however, the FTT preferred HMRC’s argument that the sums were paid by way of reimbursement for excessive expenditure by the business. The compensation arose from the carrying on of the business, while it existed, and was thus properly viewed as a post-cessation receipt, within the meaning of Section 349 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005.

Although it could be said that the sums had been paid ‘for’ the mis-selling, the bank’s wrongdoing was merely the source of the legal right to compensation, which did not include a punitive element. The payments were thus revenue receipts and constituted taxable income. The FTT also noted that the brothers’ right of action against the bank constituted an asset. In those circumstances, the compensation would have been subject to Capital Gains Tax even had it been regarded as a capital item.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Court Visit Required to Give Clarity to Will

18th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Many wills contain clauses which alter the distribution of assets in the event of changing circumstances, such as the death of one of the beneficiaries under the will before the person making it. When drafting such clauses, it is essential that they are absolutely clear to prevent confusion, as a recent case shows. It involved the will of a woman who died in 1973, leaving her estate in trust for her son for his lifetime and then to his children if he had any. If he did not, the estate was...

Fraud Victim Sacrificed His Home by Delay in Seeking Legal Advice

15th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

If you have a legitimate legal complaint, any delay in consulting a solicitor is highly likely to benefit the wrongdoer. A man whose home was taken from him by fraud, but who delayed over 20 years before taking legal action, found that out to his cost. The man had been dispossessed of his home in 1989 by a fraudster who made use of forged documents in successfully having the property registered in his name. The fraudster subsequently transferred the house to his son, who was aware of the fraud. The...

UK Fairness Test Mitigates Italian Pre-Nuptial Agreement

12th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

The law relating to the division of family assets on divorce varies widely across the world and the UK is generally regarded as one of the fairer jurisdictions for such financial arrangements in that the assets tend to be divided more equally than in many other countries. Accordingly, where a family with an international lifestyle breaks up and there is a reasonably strong connection to the UK, it is often chosen as the jurisdiction of preference for divorce proceedings by a spouse who might be disadvantaged if the proceedings are...

What is the Tax Status of Compensation for Financial Product Mis-Selling?

7th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Is compensation paid to individuals whose businesses have failed due to mis-selling of financial products subject to Income Tax? In a decision that will disappoint many victims of bank wrongdoing, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has answered that question in the affirmative. The case concerned seven brothers whose property letting business had been mis-sold interest rate hedging products (IRHPs). The business subsequently failed, allegedly due to the high interest rates imposed by the IRHPs. After they lodged complaints, the relevant bank paid them basic compensation totalling almost £360,000. HM Revenue and...