Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Alexander Beard v The Commissioners for HMRC

25 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 73 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal
A UK resident received payments from a Jersey company. The question was: were these payments taxable as income or capital gains? The court decided they were income because the company used a method of payment that's usually for profits, not for reducing its capital. Even though the payments came from a share premium account, the way they were paid made them taxable as income.

Key Facts

  • Mr. Beard, a UK resident, received cash and in-specie distributions from Glencore PLC, a Jersey-incorporated company, between 2011-12 and 2015-16.
  • Distributions were paid from Glencore's share premium account, not retained earnings.
  • HMRC assessed Mr. Beard to income tax on these distributions.
  • Mr. Beard appealed, arguing the distributions were of a capital nature, subject to capital gains tax.

Legal Principles

In determining the tax treatment of payments from a non-UK company, the character of the payment under the paying company's corporate law is established, then UK tax legislation is applied.

FTT Decision, paragraph [47]

Section 402 ITTOIA 2005 charges income tax on dividends of non-UK resident companies, excluding dividends of a capital nature.

ITTOIA 2005, Section 402

The meaning of "dividend" in tax legislation is determined by its ordinary meaning under English law, considering what the company is permitted to do under its governing law.

First Nationwide v HMRC [2011] STC 1540 (UT), paragraphs [23], [38], [48]

A distribution is considered a dividend if it is made by the same mechanism as a dividend paid from trading profits.

First Nationwide v HMRC, paragraphs [38], [50], [54]

The determination of whether a dividend is of a capital nature is a matter of UK law, focusing on the character of the dividend, not the source of funds.

Case Law Discussion, paragraphs [47], [54], [69]

The 'machinery of distribution' test determines whether a distribution is capital or income. If the mechanism used is for reducing capital (e.g., Part 12 CJL 1991), it is capital; otherwise, it's income.

First Nationwide v HMRC [2012] EWCA Civ 278, paragraphs [55], [59], [68], [69]

Outcomes

The appeal was dismissed.

The distributions were held to be "dividends" under the ordinary meaning of the term in English law, made using the mechanism for distributing profits (Part 17 CJL 1991) and not the mechanism for capital reduction (Part 12 CJL 1991). They were not "dividends of a capital nature" because the distribution mechanism did not involve a reduction of Glencore's capital.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.