Skip to content
Solved
SearchBrowse
Sign in

Contents

Official guidance
Business Income Manual

BIM100000 · Miscellaneous income

  • BIM100101 · Scope of the provisions: overview
  • BIM100105 · Scope of the provisions: judicial comment
  • BIM100110 · Scope of the provisions: services
  • BIM100115 · Scope of the provisions: services - contracts and arrangements
  • BIM100120 · Scope of the provisions: services - amount of work done
  • BIM100125 · Scope of the provisions: sweep-up - introduction
  • BIM100130 · Scope of the provisions: sweep-up - judicial comment
  • BIM100135 · Scope of the provisions: isolated sales of assets
  • BIM100140 · Scope of the provisions: series of sales of assets
  • BIM100150 · Calculating the profits
  • BIM100155 · Deductions
  • BIM100190 · Losses
  • BIM100205 · Particular sources: authors
  • BIM100210 · Particular sources: cash-backs
  • BIM100215 · Particular sources: guarantees
  • BIM100220 · Particular sources: hire of equipment
  • BIM100225 · Particular sources: loans
  • BIM100230 · Particular sources: newspaper stories
  • BIM100235 · Particular sources: photography
  • BIM100240 · Particular sources: restraint of trade
  • BIM100245 · Particular sources: film and television
  • BIM100250 · Particular sources: tolls
  1. Miscellaneous income: contents
  2. Miscellaneous income: particular sources: restraint of trade

BIM100240 | Miscellaneous income: particular sources: restraint of trade

From HM Revenue & Customs · Business Income Manual

S687-S689 Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, S979-S981 Corporation Tax Act 2009

A payment for agreeing not to do something may be chargeable as miscellaneous income under the sweep-up provisions.

The case of Higgs v Olivier [1952] 33TC136 relates to a payment made to Sir Laurence Olivier. Following the making of the film of Henry V, Olivier agreed not to act in, produce or direct a film for any other person for a period of eighteen months in return for a payment of £15,000. This was held not to be taxable as income from his profession as an actor/director.

It was considered that a payment not to do something was not a trading receipt (see BIM35600), however the question of whether such a payment was taxable under the sweep-up provisions was not considered in this case.

Judicial comments in later cases have indicated that such payments are a payment for a service chargeable under the sweep-up provisions.

In Murray v ICI Ltd [1967] 44TC175, Cross J said at page 207:

‘The Crown made no alternative argument under [the sweep-up provisions] on the basis that the £15,000 was a payment for a service rendered by Sir Laurence Olivier at the request of the film company. Had it done so, then the question might well have arisen whether it was a casual profit of a revenue nature or a payment for parting with a capital asset: see the judgement of Rowlatt J. in Ryall v Hoare 8TC521. It may be - I say no more - that, had the claim been put that way, the Crown would have succeeded.’

The Court of Appeal approved Cross J’s judgment in full.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms