Harry Potter star loses £1.9m tax row
Harry Potter star Rupert Grint has lost an appeal at the tax tribunal after attempting to pay capital gains tax on his earnings from the films. What’s the full story?

Rupert Grint (RG) took on the role of Ron Weasley at the tender age of 13, and so as you may expect, his father was primarily responsible for business administration. Following discussions with his tax advisers, RG's father (now deceased) incorporated a company, Clay 10, in 2011 and transferred RG's rights to be paid for the films to Clay 10. His tax advisers calculated that income tax would need to be paid on over £4m earnings already accrued, but that £4.5m could be treated as a capital gain, representing the transfer of rights, records and goodwill. Entrepreneur’s Relief (now Business Asset Disposal Relief) was claimed such that RG paid a mere 10% tax on £4.5m, which was left outstanding as a director’s loan account.
HMRC opened an enquiry and determined that the £4.5m should have been charged to income tax due to specific provisions in the income tax legislation that, broadly, imposes an income tax charge where an arrangement is made with the intention to reduce the income tax on earnings of an individual. As RG’s late father was the driving force behind the arrangement, there was little meaningful evidence RG could provide. There was an understanding that his father wanted to protect the funds by way of limited liability and RG asserted that tax avoidance would not have been his or his father’s main concern. However, HMRC argued, and the tribunal ultimately agreed that the main aim of the arrangement was to shelter the earnings from income tax. Weight was given to various emails from the tax advisers stating that the consideration could be left outstanding, and that 10% tax could be paid instead of 52%. The tax advisers claimed that tax was the focus of their correspondence due to their role but that this did not mean that reducing taxes was the main objective.
Related Topics
-
Cutting the cost of a company car
You want to help your young son replace the ancient car he currently drives. The plan is for your company to buy it but for the running costs to be met by your son. That’s fine with him but is there a more tax and cost-effective alternative?
-
Meaning of “new and unused” clarified for CAs purposes
The guidance on what “new and unused” means for the purposes of first-year allowances has been updated in order to make things clearer. What’s the full story?
-
Scammers already targeting pensioners over winter fuel payments
Phishing attacks are already being sent to pensioners purporting to be from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). What’s going on and how can you avoid becoming a victim?