HMRC wins big in “tax on gifts” case
Bernie Ecclestone’s lawyer faces a massive tax bill following the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT’s) ruling that sums he received as gifts were income. What made the FTT decide the payments were taxable?
-
Accounting for VAT if there is no cash payment
Your business has submitted repayment returns for the last two quarters and you are concerned that you might have underpaid output tax on some supplies where no money has changed hands. Are your concerns justified?
-
Treatment of distributions under review
The government has launched a consultation on modernising the tax treatment of distributions and repayments of capital by companies. The proposals could affect the distinction between dividends taxed as income and capital payments subject to CGT. What changes are being considered?
-
Tax relief on equipment you haven’t paid for (yet)
The timing of tax relief for purchases of equipment isn’t straightforward when payments are delayed or goods are purchased through hire purchase (HP) agreements. How can you use these rules to your advantage and get tax relief before you’ve paid the final invoice?
Over a period of 14 years Bernie Ecclestone’s former wife, Slavica, made payments totalling around £37 million to Stephen Mullens, Ecclestone’s lawyer. He claimed these gifts resulted from their "personal relationship of friendship and affection" and that they were wholly outside and distinct from any business relationship. Despite hearing evidence of Mrs Ecclestone’s generosity and a document purporting to be a deed of gift relating to a payment in 2006, the FTT considered all the payments, apart from one, were actually a reward for professional services provided by Mullens.
It is possible for a payment to be a gift, and so not taxable as income, even where a business relationship exists between the payer and the recipient, but the burden of proof is high. Mullen’s case was hindered because neither Bernie Ecclestone nor his former wife gave evidence. The FTT judges said they had no hesitation in deciding that Mullens had acted fraudulently in not declaring the payments and then representing them as gifts.
The FTT also ruled that because of Mullen’s deliberate action to hide the payments HMRC was entitled to make back-assessments under the rules of discovery. These give HMRC more time (up to 20 years) in cases of tax lost because of fraud compared with that lost from carelessness.
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.