½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

The cases and other authorities cited in this article relate to liability under the legislation that had effect before 2003/04, in other words, the Schedule E legislation rather than the rewritten legislation in ITEPA 2003 (see E4.101). Accordingly, since the principles described here were established, not only have the statutory provisions changed, but so has the terminology used; see E4.401. However, the overall effect of existing rules is not changed by ITEPA 2003; see E4.101. Indeed, to ensure that existing case law will apply to anything that counts as an emolument but is not listed in the definition of 'earnings' introduced by ITEPA 2003, there is a single reference to the term 'emolument' in that definition; see E4.401.

In Rose v Humbles¹, Buckley J considered that money received from a company by a director in breach of his fiduciary obligations could not constitute an emolument in his hands. However, where a back duty investigation shows an unexplained shortfall in the declared resources of a company director, the shortfall may, in the absence of any other