The Vermilion case concerns the question whether a share option granted by Vermilion to its incoming executive chairman under a refinancing and replacing a larger option granted to him when he was an independent consultant for corporate advisory services was an ‘employment-related securities option’ within the employment-related securities regime in ITEPA 2003. If it was the gain which he later made on exercising the option would be liable to employment income tax not CGT. It was ‘employment-related’ if it was granted by reason of his employment (including directorship) or if it was granted by his employer (Vermilion) (the ‘deeming rule’). The Supreme Court decided that the deeming rule should be applied first to avoid the difficult causation questions raised by the ‘by reason of’ test. The option was granted by Vermilion and accordingly as there was no injustice absurdity or anomaly in treating his...
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
The Vermilion case concerns the question whether a share option granted by Vermilion to its incoming executive chairman under a refinancing and replacing a larger option granted to him when he was an independent consultant for corporate advisory services was an ‘employment-related securities option’ within the employment-related securities regime in ITEPA 2003. If it was the gain which he later made on exercising the option would be liable to employment income tax not CGT. It was ‘employment-related’ if it was granted by reason of his employment (including directorship) or if it was granted by his employer (Vermilion) (the ‘deeming rule’). The Supreme Court decided that the deeming rule should be applied first to avoid the difficult causation questions raised by the ‘by reason of’ test. The option was granted by Vermilion and accordingly as there was no injustice absurdity or anomaly in treating his...
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
