UK Supreme Court Confirms Income Tax on Deferred Trader Profits

A landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court in June 2026 has ended a long-running tax dispute involving Alex Gerko and other members of a forex trading partnership. The Court found that profits held back by a corporate member and later paid out to traders were taxable income, despite the elaborate deferral scheme. In essence, the scheme could not escape income tax on deferred trader profits through clever structuring.

High-Profile Trader Tax Appeal Outcome and What It Means

Partnership structure: 

HFFX LLP was a foreign exchange trading partnership with both individual and corporate members. An internal Capital Allocation Plan (CAP) allowed part of each trader’s bonus to be paid to the corporate member (GSAM) instead. GSAM invested the funds and later returned proceeds as “Special Capital” to the traders.

Intended tax result: 

The arrangement aimed to have GSAM pay corporation tax on the retained amounts and to make the eventual payments to individuals appear as non-taxable capital, avoiding income tax. The traders argued they only received capital, not income.

HMRC’s challenge: 

HMRC argued the deferred amounts were still income and should be taxed. It raised two legal claims:

Section 850 ITTOIA (profit-sharing arrangements): 

HMRC said the partnership’s profit-sharing rules meant these amounts were effectively the individual partners’ profit shares and should be taxed in the year earned.

Section 687 ITTOIA (miscellaneous income): 

Alternatively, HMRC said the payments were income “not otherwise charged” and thus still taxable when actually paid.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed both appeals, siding with HMRC on the core points. Its reasoning, explained below, clarifies how deferred bonuses are taxed in the UK.

Read: ‘Widespread Non-Compliance’: Three-Quarters of Landlords and Sole Traders Miss Deadlines for Making Tax Digital for Income Tax

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

How Deferred Bonuses are Taxed in UK

1. Profit-sharing rule (Section 850): 

Section 850 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 requires that a partner’s share of a firm’s profits be determined “in accordance with the firm’s profit-sharing arrangements” in each accounting period. The key is legal entitlement during that period.

The court held that for s850 to apply, the partners must have a contractual right during the period to receive a specific share of profit. In this case, the “indicative allocation letters” to traders did not give any enforceable right to payment in that period. The actual payments occurred later and were at GSAM’s discretion. Therefore, the deferred amounts were not regarded as partners’ profit shares under s850.

“Profits are translated into income only to the extent a partner had a contractual right in that period to share in those profits… The amounts in the indicative allocation letters were therefore not profit shares… because the individual member had no contractual right… to receive that sum of money.”

2. Miscellaneous income (Section 687): 

Section 687 ITTOIA is a catch-all tax charge on income “from any source not charged under any other provision.” HMRC argued that when GSAM finally paid out the Special Capital, it was taxable income because it came from trading profits and was not covered by any other rule.

The individual members contended that GSAM’s payouts were purely voluntary (since GSAM had discretion) and so had no “source” for s687. The Supreme Court disagreed. It found that the decision-making process under the CAP was a sufficient source linking the payments to the recipients’ trading earnings. In other words, there was a clear economic connection: the payments rewarded the traders for their work. Thus, the special capital was income in their hands when paid and taxable under s687.

“The decision-making process of Mr Gerko and GSAM in implementing the CAP… is the source of the deferred income received by the individual members… The special capital received… under the CAP is therefore income charged to income tax under section 687 ITTOIA.”

Outcome: 

The Supreme Court dismissed the traders’ tax appeal and HMRC’s cross-appeal. In practical terms, the traders (including Alex Gerko) must pay income tax on the deferred amounts just as if they had been paid in the year earned. The scheme’s structure could not convert taxable earnings into tax-free capital.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

Key Insights and Lessons From Income Tax on Deferred Trader Profits Case

Economic substance matters: 

The courts looked at the real nature of the payments, not just how they were labeled. Even though the CAP branded the payments as “Special Capital,” the substance was deferred compensation for trading profits. UK tax law will tax the substance of income, not the form.

A contractual right is essential: 

To use Section 850, a partner must have had a clear right in that accounting period to part of the profit. In this case, the partners had no contractual entitlement to the deferred sums during the relevant years, so s850 did not apply. In any profit-sharing scheme, ensure that profit rights are clearly defined and enforceable if you want them to trigger tax reliefs in real time.

Deferred payments can still be taxed later: 

The ruling confirms that postponing payment does not sidestep taxation. If the income is clearly linked to your work (through contracts, decisions, or incentives), it will be taxed under the catch-all rules like s.687 when it is received. Timing alone doesn’t eliminate tax liability.

Plan with tax in mind: 

Complex structures often attract scrutiny. Taxpayers should design arrangements in alignment with both the letter and purpose of the law. Overly aggressive schemes risk being recharacterised by HMRC and the courts.

Precedent matters: 

This case followed similar lines to earlier decisions (e.g. the BlueCrest cases) about deferred partnership payments. It underlines that legal discretion given to a corporate partner (like GSAM) is still governed by implied duties (per Braganza rules) and can create taxable sources of income.

Also Read: How the Income Tax Threshold Freeze 2030–31 Could Affect Your Tax Bill

What Went Wrong in the Scheme

The heart of the problem was that the profit-sharing and deferral plan tried to separate profit generation from profit receipt:

• The incentivisation plan (CAP) gave GSAM absolute discretion to allocate retained profits later. Legally, individual traders had no vested right to those profits until GSAM actually paid them.
• Because of that discretion, in the eyes of law no part of HFFX’s profits was definitively theirs in the year it was earned. The partnership deed’s profit-sharing rules never guaranteed those deferred sums to the individuals.
• The traders hoped that labelling the payouts as a capital allocation (rather than salary) would exempt them from income tax. The Court focused on the actual link: GSAM paid the money as a reward for trading performance, which made it income to the traders.
• In short, the scheme lacked a binding profit-sharing right up front, so it failed to meet the conditions of section 850. And when the payments were finally made, they were caught by the residual tax rule (s687).

Avoiding these pitfalls: 

Make sure that any bonus or profit share you defer still meets legal tests if you want to claim favourable tax treatment. If you intend for a deferred arrangement to count as partnership profit, build in a firm entitlement and document it clearly. Alternatively, if you treat it as genuinely separate capital, be prepared to argue on sources – but be aware that tax authorities can still reclassify it as taxable income.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

Legal Issues and Supreme Court Findings

Issue	Supreme Court Conclusion
Deferred profit share under s850 ITTOIA	The traders had no contractual right to the profits in the original year, so s.850 does not apply. The profits held by the corporate member (GSAM) were not deemed the individuals’ shares for tax purposes.
Later payments (Special Capital)	The final payments were taxable. The decision-making and contractual rights in the CAP were a sufficient source to make the payouts income under s687. In effect, the sums ended up taxed as ordinary income when received by each trader.

How to Handle Deferred Payments and Partnerships

• Clear entitlements: If using a partnership or LLP structure, ensure each member’s right to profits is well-defined. Section 850 requires a clear sharing arrangement so the tax position is known per year.
• Documentation: Keep thorough records of any bonus or deferral agreements. If payments are discretionary, be aware they may be seen as voluntary. If not truly voluntary (e.g. governed by contract and duties), they can be treated as taxable income.
• Tax advice: Before implementing a deferral scheme, consult specialists on how UK law views your plan. Small changes in contract terms can change the tax outcome.
• Proactive review: Regularly review partnership deeds and remuneration policies to catch any unintended tax traps. For example, consider whether payments could fall under “employment income” or the sales of earnings rules (Chapter 4, ITA 2007) if structured differently.
• HMRC compliance: If there is uncertainty about past arrangements, consider making a disclosure. Voluntarily correcting tax affairs can reduce penalties and interest compared to waiting for an enquiry.

Penalties and Disclosure

If income should have been declared but was not, HMRC may charge interest and penalties on the unpaid tax. The severity depends on factors like intent:

• Reasonable care: If you can show you took care but still underpaid, penalties may be limited (review of 4–6 years back taxes).
• Careless behaviour: Failing to take reasonable care can extend look-back periods (up to 6 years) and increase penalties.
• Deliberate non-disclosure: If HMRC proves you knowingly hid income, you could face penalties on up to 20 years of tax owed. In severe cases, criminal charges are possible.
• Offshore elements: Hidden offshore income triggers a longer disclosure period (up to 12 years).

It’s crucial to get professional help if your tax position is challenged. An enquiry into a complex partnership scheme can be costly and time-consuming, so early resolution or disclosure is often wise.

How We Help Businesses Manage Income Tax on Deferred Payments 

Apex Accountants helps businesses and individuals navigate complex tax matters. We offer:

• Partnership tax planning: Structuring LLPs and profit-sharing to meet tax requirements.
• Remuneration advice: Guidance on bonus and deferred pay schemes, ensuring tax efficiency within the law.
• HMRC enquiry support: Representation during tax investigations and appeals.
• Compliance reviews: Review company and partnership tax filings to identify any past exposures.
• Tax disclosure assistance: Helping clients make voluntary disclosures and manage potential penalties.

Our experts stay up-to-date with UK tax cases and legislation, ensuring advice reflects the latest legal standards.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

FAQs About Alexander Gerko’s UK Supreme Court Tax Ruling

Were Alex Gerko and colleagues “double taxed” by this decision?

No. The court found no double taxation. Originally, part of the profits was taxed at corporate rates in GSAM, and later the same amounts were taxed as personal income in the traders’ hands. The Supreme Court’s view is that this reflects the economic reality: the traders had not already been taxed on their entitlement, so tax was due on the later payment.

Can any deferred bonus scheme avoid income tax in the UK?

Generally, simply delaying payment won’t avoid tax if the payments are linked to your work. UK law taxes based on substance. If a scheme is genuine capital (rare), it might escape income tax. But if it effectively rewards services, it will usually be taxed, either via partnership rules or the catch-all provision.

What is the significance of having “no contractual right” to the profit?

Section 850 requires that, in the year profits are earned, each partner has a specific right to a part of them. In this case, the traders only had a hope (discretionary claim) and no legal entitlement until GSAM decided. Because of that, the partnership’s profit-sharing rules never assigned those amounts to them in that year, and so s850 did not apply.

What is a “source” of income under s.687?

A “source” means the activity or relationship from which income arises. The Supreme Court said the source here was the traders’ own work and the contractual framework (CAP/LLP deed). The payments were linked to the trading profits and the CAP decisions, which made them taxable income.

What should a trader or partner do to avoid these issues?

Make sure any deferred payments are properly accounted for tax-wise. If you want to defer legitimately, build in enforceable rights and document them. If using a corporate vehicle, get clear advice on tax timing. And always review whether HMRC might view any payments as income anyway. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that creative tax structures must align with the law’s substance. For high-earning individuals and partnerships, this means ensuring clear legal entitlements and transparent reporting. If you have complex profit-sharing arrangements, proactive tax planning and review are essential to avoid costly adjustments and penalties.