Welcome

Hochstrasser v Mayes [1960] AC 376

ResourcesHochstrasser v Mayes [1960] AC 376

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.
  • 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.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.