False attribution meaning

Waterside Escapes Ltd v HMRC [2020] What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment considers two strands of the SDLT code: the 15% charge in FA 2003, Sch 4A and the partnership rules in FA 2003, Sch 15, alongside a detailed review of the connected persons provisions in the CTA 2010. It confirms that, for FA 2003, Sch 4A, para 5(2), what matters is the company’s subjective intention about whether a non-qualifying individual may occupy a dwelling, and that intention can be shown by a clause in a shareholders’ agreement. The case reminds tax practitioners that the wording of shareholders’ agreements and other governing documents can be pivotal in determining whether relief applies (here, relief from the 15% SDLT rate was unavailable because of a permissive clause in the shareholders’ agreement). It further confirms that the concept of occupation for the 15% relief is intentionally broad and includes all forms of occupation except where the use is wholly for business purposes (in...

The opinion is landmark. It bears far-reaching consequences for the evolution of international law, the corpus of international climate change law and related litigation, and for controversies determined under international investment treaties. I. UNFCCC: Article 4(2) is binding and interrelated to Article 2 The court records that Annex 1 [developed] countries are subject to a binding legal duty to implement climate measures that reduce GHG emissions. This amounts to an obligation of result. Equally, one cannot conclude that an obligation of result—such as the duty to adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change—is satisfied simply by adopting some policies and taking related steps. Compliance requires that the policies adopted and measures taken are capable of achieving the stipulated aim. Put differently, adopting a policy and taking related measures as a box-ticking exercise does not suffice to discharge the obligation of result (para [208]). Those instruments must be capable, in practice, of ultimately reaching the required objective. Mere formalities, however,...

The artists' complaint Filed in California federal court on 3 May 2024, the artists’ lawsuit focuses on Imagen, a text‑to‑image diffusion system that employs machine learning to create pictures from user prompts. Comparable legal actions have been brought against other artificial intelligence (AI) firms, this appears to be the first aimed at Google LLC’s iteration, their counsel told Law360 on 29 April 2024. Matthew Butterick, one of the solicitors for the artists, stated on 29 April 2024 that the pleading outlines another episode of a multi‑trillion‑dollar technology giant opting to train a commercial AI tool on others’ copyrighted material without consent, attribution or payment. The claim asserts that Imagen is trained by duplicating an enormous volume of digital images and extracting protected expression from those works. The artists said it relies on a dataset assembled by the non‑profit Large‑scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network, or LAION. They added: during model training, the images in the dataset are copied in their entirety and wholly absorbed by the system, such that protected...

Stop Press : From accounting periods starting on or after 1 January 2026, the Diverted Profits Tax is superseded by the unassessed transfer pricing profits rules. This Practice Note, alongside Transactions in UK land—tax rules, examines the anti-avoidance provisions aimed at countering attempts to sidestep tax on income, profits or gains connected with arrangements concerning, or trades of dealing in, land. The main anti-avoidance measure seeks to treat gains of a capital character realised on the disposal of land as income, bringing them within income tax or corporation tax. Further detail appears in Practice Note: Transactions in UK land—tax rules. From 5 July 2016 these rules superseded and expanded the former transactions in land rules (for information on prior rules, see Practice Note: Real estate—anti-avoidance: disposals of land and taxing capital gains as income (pre 5 July 2016) [Archived])...

The UK’s rules on hybrid and other mismatches Since 1 January 2017, the UK’s hybrid and other mismatch rules (described in this Practice Note as the hybrid rules) have been in force, designed to neutralise tax mismatches arising from how a hybrid instrument or hybrid entity is treated for tax. Although the hybrid rules typically apply to cross-border dealings involving two or more jurisdictions, they can also apply to transactions that are entirely UK domestic. They specifically address: deduction/non-inclusion mismatches (D/NI mismatches), i.e. where a payment under a hybrid mismatch arrangement is deductible in the payer jurisdiction for tax purposes but is not included in the taxable income of a payee or a related party investor; and double deduction cases (DD cases), i.e. where a payment under a hybrid mismatch arrangement gives rise to more than one tax deduction. For more detail on the hybrid rules, see Practice Note: Hybrid mismatches—introduction to the rules. For an overview in table form of...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to the future withdrawal of DST : Following OECD-led talks that produced a political accord on a two‑pillar solution in October 2021, the UK reached an understanding with the US, Austria, France, Spain and Italy to move away from DST towards the new global tax regime, using a transitional DST credit system. Under the arrangement, the UK would retain DST receipts until Pillar One became operational and, once in force, companies could credit against future UK corporation tax the difference between DST paid from January 2022 and the amount that would have arisen had Pillar One applied instead. In exchange, the US, which regards digital services taxes as discriminatory towards US companies, agreed to withdraw proposed retaliatory tariffs on certain US imports from the other five countries, and undertook not to pursue additional trade measures against those states because of their digital services taxes until the interim period concluded. This understanding was subsequently extended by all six countries to 30 June 2024, from an original end...

Date: [ insert date ] 1 Introduction The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023) aims to bolster the UK’s response to economic wrongdoing. It is designed to strengthen the UK’s fight against economic crime. A standout change for commercial organisations is the broadened basis on which companies can be criminally liable for misconduct by senior managers, extending corporate responsibility for their actions. 1.1 What’s the issue? Since 1971, the courts’ identification doctrine has set the test for treating a natural person’s actions and state of mind as those of a legal person. It has been the principal route for attributing criminal responsibility to corporate bodies. Under this approach, only when the ‘directing mind and will’ of a company committed the offence could liability attach to the corporate itself; in practice, this largely captured the managing director or owner when actively running the business. That standard has long been a demanding hurdle for prosecutors, which the government has now materially lowered via ECCTA 2023....

1 Introduction 1.1 [ Insert organisation name ] is proud of how we run our affairs. Our Code of ethics sets out the principles and rules that govern our operations. It binds everyone here. Please read the Code carefully, ensure you understand it, and let it steer your day‑to‑day work. If you are unsure about the Code or how it applies, speak with [ insert, eg your manager ] 1.2 [ Insert organisation name ] operates a zero‑tolerance policy on employees engaging in criminal conduct 1.3 From 26 December 2023, under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, if a senior manager, acting within their actual or apparent authority, commits a relevant offence, the organisation is likewise guilty of that offence 2 Senior manager 2.1 A senior manager is an individual who plays a pivotal role in: 2.1.1 deciding how the whole, or a substantial part, of the organisation’s activities are to...

Insert as new clauses 11.13 and 11.14 of Precedent: Asset purchase agreement—pro-buyer—corporate seller—conditional—long form: 11 Warranties 11.13 The Seller recognises that: Following Completion, the Buyer intends to transfer [ all OR some of ] the Assets (the Resale Transaction) to a Buyer’s Group member or a third party (the Resale Buyer); Under the Resale Transaction, the Resale Buyer will rely, among other things, on warranties from the Buyer (the Resale Warranties); and The Resale Warranties will mirror those in Schedule [ 12 OR [ insert number for warranties schedule ] ]. 11.14 The Seller agrees that: If the Buyer makes any Warranty Claim after a Resale Transaction, the Seller shall not challenge it due to the Buyer entering the Resale Transaction or giving the Resale Warranties, nor argue that the measure of damages or relief is affected or reduced as a result; and The Buyer may treat any loss or damage it suffers from...