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

Informal Agreement Leads Family to Court of Appeal

22nd August, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Disputes within families are very common indeed and one of the issues the courts see over and over again is where there is a family 'understanding' that ends in a disagreement. In a recent case, the result of one such dispute is that an 82-year-old woman will be forced to sell the home she has lived in for decades. Many such cases involve farming businesses. These traditionally pass down from generation to generation, and often one child will work on the farm for many years with the others moving away. It...

Tax Investigations – Judge Authorises Disclosure of Credit Card Bills

19th August, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

To what extent are the tax authorities entitled to delve into what would otherwise be your private financial information? The High Court tackled that issue in authorising disclosure of a wealthy businessman's credit card statements to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) as part of a cross-border investigation into his tax affairs. The Swedish businessman claimed not to be subject to Swedish tax on the basis that he had emigrated to Switzerland. The Swedish tax authorities considered that he remained ordinarily resident in Sweden and requested HMRC's assistance in investigating the...

Court Returns Two-Year-Old to Land of Birth When Parents' Marriage Collapses

16th August, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

For a UK court to have jurisdiction over a family law case, it is necessary to show that at least one party to it has habitual residence in the UK. In a recent case, an Israeli woman divorcing her Israeli husband sought a declaration that their two-year-old daughter was habitually resident in the UK so that the UK Family Court could deal with the hearings regarding the child's welfare. The Court refused the application and accepted that the child should be removed to Israel in accordance with the father's wishes....

Be Careful What You Post

13th August, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Although the final result was not financial ruin for the defendant, a recent case illustrates how unwise it is to vent one's spleen on social media. It involved a firm of solicitors that had been involved in the sale of 'off plan' properties in Cyprus. This led an unhappy purchaser to make a post on Facebook and in a webinar that made allegations of mis-selling against the firm and others related to it. The result was a claim for damages for defamation. In hearing the claim, the High Court had firstly...