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 Ball v Johnson¹, the taxpayer was an employee of a bank and required by the terms of his employment to sit for examinations in banking 'the better to qualify himself for his duties in the service of the bank'. The bank made cash awards to those passing the examinations, and the taxpayer received two such awards.