In O'Brien v Benson's Hosiery (Holdings) Ltd 1979 STC 735 it was held that a sum of money paid to a company by the director in consideration of the company releasing him from his obligations under a service agreement was a capital sum derived from that service agreement, and that the service agreement in question was an asset of the company, notwithstanding that the company could not transfer the service agreement to any other party without the agreement of the employee.
In Marren v Ingles 1980 STC 500 the Court held that the right to receive a sum was an asset for the purposes of CGT.
In Zim Properties Ltd v Proctor 1985 STC 90 the Court accepted Revenue’s argument that the right to compensation derived from an asset, being Zim’s “right to sue” their legal advisors, was an asset for CGT purposes.
In Kirby v Thorn EMI plc 1987 STC 621 the UK Court of Appeal established that assets are synonymous with “property” and held that the right or freedom to trade, or to compete, is not “property” and, therefore, is not an asset for CGT purposes.
Whether the transfer of rights attaching to a class of shares to another class of shares was chargeable to income tax as a distribution 24TACD2018