Didn't find your answer?

Looks like a correct decison to me.


Is HMRC now going to introduce 20 year retrospective legislation for that disguised remuneration tax avoidance planning involving image rights I wonder? If not, why not?

Replies (2)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Justin Bryant
17th Jul 2019 15:35

Unlike the Rangers loans, which were found to be genuine loans (despite what others might think no court has ever said otherwise re any EBT employee loans) the image rights agreement was not for the genuine exploitation of image rights but was a disguised salary, so there is all the more reason for 20 year retrospective tax here is there not?

In fact, had the SC decided Rangers on this mislabling case law rather than the nonsence redirected earnings argument (unsupported by case law) then I would probably have agreed with it re the footballers at least.

I am surprised that HMRC's counsel did not cite other quasi sham/mislabing tax cases in support (and merely trotted out lease/licence (Street v Mountford) and employee/self-employed cases yet again). There are plenty re CAs and VAT. See:






Also, Aweb has covered this particular story before, so hopefully there will be an update here soon. See:https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/hmrc-blows-the-whistle-o...

Thanks (1)
By thomas34
09th Apr 2019 17:44


Thanks (1)