## Facts

- Mr. Mayes was employed by the National Coal Board (NCB) and relocated for work-related reasons.
- Upon the move, Mr. Mayes incurred a financial loss from selling his home due to unfavorable market conditions.
- The NCB had an arrangement to compensate employees for such housing losses, a typical practice among large employers.
- The tax authorities asserted that the compensation paid to Mr. Mayes was taxable as income from his employment.

## Issues

1. Whether compensation payments made by an employer to reimburse an employee for financial losses (arising from relocation and home sale) constitute taxable emoluments from employment.
2. Whether a payment is taxable as income depends on a direct link to the employment or the possibility that it arises from an external cause.

## Decision

- The House of Lords determined that the payment to Mr. Mayes was not taxable as it was not an emolument arising from his employment.
- The loss compensated was caused by market conditions, not by the duties or risks naturally associated with Mr. Mayes’s employment.
- The NCB’s relocation compensation scheme operated independently of Mr. Mayes’s contractual job duties.
- It was concluded that only payments directly arising from employment are subject to income tax as emoluments.

## Legal Principles

- For tax purposes, only payments directly linked to the duties of employment are considered taxable emoluments.
- Payments to compensate for losses not directly connected with or arising from employment—such as housing losses from market fluctuations—are not taxable income.
- The distinction between compensation for the performance of employment duties and for losses due to separate, external factors is critical in determining taxability.

## Conclusion

Hochstrasser v Mayes established that compensation payments are only taxable as emoluments if they arise directly from employment duties; payments made for losses caused by external factors, such as adverse market conditions in home sales, are not subject to income tax as employment income. This case set a lasting precedent guiding the tax treatment of employer compensation schemes.


Hochstrasser v Mayes [1960] AC 376