Lord Oliver’s approach set out in Bray v Best (61TC705) at
page 752 should be observed when determining the year that earnings
are “for”:
“The period to which any given payment
is attributed is a question to be determined as one offact in each case, depending upon all of the
circumstances, including its source and theintention of the payer so far as it can be
gathered either from direct evidence or from thesurrounding circumstances”.
An essential starting point is to obtain contemporaneous evidence. This may include all or any of the following:
These documents may indicate the understanding of the parties
regarding the performance period that awards are intended to be
“for”. The intention of the employer as disclosed to
the employee and the understanding of the employee are particularly
significant.
Unsubstantiated recollections of the employee regarding
intention should be considered but given less weight than
contemporaneous documented statements.
If Plan documents and contemporaneous information do not
provide clarity, it is reasonable to make inferences from available
evidence.
You may ask the Large Business Team or CRM dealing with the
Corporation Tax affairs of the employer company how the bonus
awards have been treated in the employer company accounts. The
company may claim a deduction for a single year or may create
provisions to spread the deduction over a longer period. This may
indicate the period the employer considers the award to be
“for”. The accounting treatment is not conclusive, but
it is significant. In the absence of clear statements in the Plan
documents the accounting treatment may be evidence of the
employer’s understanding of what the scheme was intended to
achieve.
Lump sums may be made up of amounts arising from different
bonus periods and different deferred remuneration plans. If
component amounts are “for” different tax years,
different rules within Part 2 Chapters 4 and 5 may apply, to
produce different liabilities to income tax.