.png)
.png)
The uncertainty continues over the NIC treatment of employers' contributions to a funded unapproved retirement benefit scheme. Nobody ever thought that NICs applied to contributions to FURBS — except the Inland Revenue who in 1997 published a press release expressing its view. It has never satisfactorily explained its reasoning, but many people have paid NIC just for an easy life. However, in 2000, the case of Tullett and Tokyo Forex International Limited v Secretary of State for Social Security came to the rescue.
The uncertainty continues over the NIC treatment of employers' contributions to a funded unapproved retirement benefit scheme. Nobody ever thought that NICs applied to contributions to FURBS — except the Inland Revenue who in 1997 published a press release expressing its view. It has never satisfactorily explained its reasoning but many people have paid NIC just for an easy life. However in 2000 the case of Tullett and Tokyo Forex International Limited v Secretary of State for Social Security came to the rescue. This case decided that bonuses paid in the form of gilts to life assurance policies were not liable to NICs. This was generally regarded as helpful because there is no real distinction between bonuses by way of gilts to life assurance policies and payments into a FURBS.
Unfortunately in June 2003 the Revenue reconfirmed its view that a payment...
