<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1960 (6) TMI 24 - HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186732</link>
    <description>A non-transferable employee option to buy shares at a fixed price was treated as a taxable perquisite when granted, because the employee acquired a valuable contractual right capable of being turned to pecuniary account. The option&#039;s non-transferable character did not remove its value, and any later monetisation through third-party arrangements or sale after exercise did not change that analysis. Later appreciation in the shares was not a fresh employment-related perquisite, because that increase came from market forces rather than the office itself. The earlier view that the option was valueless until exercise was rejected, and the assessment based on a gain arising at exercise could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:57:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (6) TMI 24 - HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186732</link>
      <description>A non-transferable employee option to buy shares at a fixed price was treated as a taxable perquisite when granted, because the employee acquired a valuable contractual right capable of being turned to pecuniary account. The option&#039;s non-transferable character did not remove its value, and any later monetisation through third-party arrangements or sale after exercise did not change that analysis. Later appreciation in the shares was not a fresh employment-related perquisite, because that increase came from market forces rather than the office itself. The earlier view that the option was valueless until exercise was rejected, and the assessment based on a gain arising at exercise could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>