| Employment Income: Emoluments |
17 |
the resulting public collection, six and 11 times, respectively. The Revenue successfully claimed tax in respect of the public collections. Seymour v Reed was distinguishable on almost every point. Dooland had a contractual right to a collection; Seymour had no such right to his benefit. Dooland had a collection whenever he performed well; Seymour had only one benefit. Dooland’s payments were small compared with his salary; Seymour’s payment was very great. On similar reasoning footballers’ benefits after only five years have been held to be taxable.83 |
It does not follow that all collections for special feats would fall within the definition of emoluments. Thus, if Dooland had no contractual right to a collection but had scored 50 runs and then taken all 10 wickets in a match so that the achievement was exceptional,84 such a collection might not be taxable. In Moore v Griffiths85 payments made by the Football Association to mark England’s victory in the World Cup in 1966 were held not to be taxable. The payment was intended to mark the Football Association’s pride in a great achievement and it would be more in keeping with the character and function of the Association to construe the payment as a testimonial or mark of esteem. Brightman J added darkly, but presciently, that the payment had no foreseeable element of recurrence.86 |
14A.4.4 Compensation for Surrender of Advantage |
A payment by way of compensation for giving up some advantage rather than by way of reward for services is not taxable as an emolument.87 This principle is applied even though the surrender of the advantage is a necessary |