case law on repayment of bonuses paid A solicitor freind of mine did some research on this and came up with the case of British Railways Board v Franklin (see summary of case below) seems to say that the employer can only recover the 'net' bonus pay that has been received, IE not any tax and NI deducted from it.
British Railways Board -v- Franklin 28 Jun 1993 CA Income Tax Tax/NI Contributions deducted from sick pay were not a loan, and were not recoverable from the employee.
This seems to mean that although the tax and NI on bonuses paid cannot be recovered from the employee they cannot also be recovered by the employer so that the only amount that could be repayable by the employee would be the net amount that they received after tax and NI deductions.
The crucial wording in this judgement in this case is:- "So far as both parties were concerned, the amounts paid over to the Revenue and the Department of Social Security had, as a matter of law, gone for ever."
I guess that this same judgement will have far reching implications and apply to any other similar circumstances?
My answers
case law on repayment of bonuses paid
A solicitor freind of mine did some research on this and came up with the case of British Railways Board v Franklin (see summary of case below) seems to say that the employer can only recover the 'net' bonus pay that has been received, IE not any tax and NI deducted from it.
British Railways Board -v- Franklin
28 Jun 1993
CA Income Tax
Tax/NI Contributions deducted from sick pay were not a loan, and were not recoverable from the employee.
This seems to mean that although the tax and NI on bonuses paid cannot be recovered from the employee they cannot also be recovered by the employer so that the only amount that could be repayable by the employee would be the net amount that they received after tax and NI deductions.
The crucial wording in this judgement in this case is:- "So far as both parties were concerned, the amounts paid over to the Revenue and the Department of Social Security had, as a matter of law, gone for ever."
I guess that this same judgement will have far reching implications and apply to any other similar circumstances?