Ken Moody muses on the confusion which can arise between the provisions relating to employment-related securities and the ‘normal’ employment income rules.
My long association with the ITEPA 2003, Pt 7 Employment Related Securities (ERS) legislation leads me to conclude that confusion stalks the land. Or put less dramatically, the rules are often confusing and contain some quite major inherent contradictions.
Land of confusion
For example, the CGT definition of ‘market value’ was imported (by ITEPA 2003, s 421) to apply for most of the ‘charging’ chapters of Part 7. Except that we now know from case law (see Lord Walker’s comments in Gray’s Timber Products v CRC [2010] UKSC4) that it does not and cannot; otherwise, parts of the legislation would not work as expected and intended. So, after more than 20 years, that remains one
