Must be getting all a bit embarrassing for her now. See para 63 et seq (which shows her CoA analysis was woefully wrong and also Newey LJ's analysis comes in for a bit of stick at para 65 - quite rightly too):
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/35.html
Interesting (and perhaps unsurprising) that Lord Hodge (the judge who decided Rangers in favour of HMRC (conveniently) ignoring potential double tax*, yet somehow remembered double tax when deciding Forde and McHugh in favour of the taxpayer on essentially similar remuneration facts re employer contributions to trusts) dissented.
The case is of course now academic due to s 12(2ZA) IHTA 1984, but it at least confirms most advisors' view re the operation of s 10 (plus the fact that there is a lot to be desired of the current judiciary (who tend to simply swallow without question whatever rubbish HMRC's counsel tell them), with a few notable exceptions).
*This potential double tax point was at least addressed in other remuneration schemes, like PA Holdings. See para 61 here: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2020/TC07755.html
It is of course hard to see an EBT contribution/loan followed by payment out many years later as part of the same plug & play scheme of course (so as to side step that double tax point, as Moses LJ did in PA Holdings).
