| Employment Income: Emoluments |
19 |
These points were emphasised by Walton J in Glantre Engineering Ltd v Goodhand93 when holding that a payment to an employee who had given up an employment elsewhere was taxable. This leaves open the question of whether the distinction is between employment and self-employment or is simply one of fact; the latter is to be preferred. Where the payment is to induce the person to leave an employment, the sum may be taxable under ITEPA section 403 TA 1988, section 148 but this must be distinguished from a payment to take up a different employment as in Shilton v Wilmshurst (above). |
14A.4.4.2 Loss of Amateur Status—Rugby League |
At one time a person who joined a rugby league club was barred from ever again playing for, or even visiting, a rugby union club. If discovered on a rugby union ground as a spectator, he (only men were involved) would be asked to leave. If he signed as a professional he would be barred from competing as an amateur in, for example, amateur athletics.94 Compensation for loss of these privileges was held non-taxable in Jarrold v Boustead.95 By contrast, in Riley v Coglan96 the sum involved was £500, of which £100 was to be paid on signing the professional forms and the balance on taking up residence in York. The player agreed to serve for the remainder of his playing career, or for 12 years if longer. If he failed to serve the whole stipulated period a proportionate part of the £500 was to be repaid by way of ascertained and liquidated damages. The Commissioners followed Jarrold v Boustead, but on appeal that case was distinguished by Ungoed-Thomas J, who concluded that the £500 was to be a running payment for making the player available to serve the club when required to do so.97 The distinction was one of fact. Coglan’s contract nowhere mentioned the abandonment of amateur status, but neither did Boustead’s, which provided for the payment of £3,000 on signing professional forms from which the court inferred that the payment was for loss. Coglan’s £500 was coupled with the proviso that £400 was to become payable only when he took up residence in York, a factor suggesting that the payment was for services to the club. These, however, are minor differences. The principal distinction is that in Boustead’s case no part of the £3,000 was returnable, whereas Coglan might have had to return some of his £500. In Pritchard v Arundale the transfer was out and out. |