‘Warranties into indemnities’ meaning

R (oao UBS AG) v HMRC and another [2024] UKUT 242 (TCC) As part of JW’s reward package, UBS and JW (then an employee) entered into three options over gilts in 2002. The options were not taken up until 2012, after JW had left the business, and delivery of the gilts did not occur until 2016/17 because of valuation problems. HMRC issued a determination under regulation 80 of the PAYE Regulations requiring the company to account for PAYE. The company disputed that determination, advancing a number of lines of attack, one of which asked HMRC to exercise its discretion under section 684(7A) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. HMRC responded that it was not appropriate to decide whether to deploy that discretionary power at that juncture, as the ultimate liability had not yet been fixed. UBS sought judicial review of...

City Blinds Scotland Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1100 (TC) Complete Solutions Europe Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1116 (TC) In City Blinds Scotland Ltd, the FTT endorsed HMRC’s determination seeking repayment of CJRS sums that had been paid in excess. The business, which manufactures and supplies blinds, had lodged five claims for support covering the span from March 2020 through to March 2021. It was accepted by both sides that the workforce in question were fixed-rate employees and that the payroll figures applied in the calculations were accurate. The live dispute comprised two principal questions. The first focused on how to derive 80% of each employee’s reference salary. In its assessment, HMRC translated the monthly remuneration into a daily figure by applying a seven‑day weekly denominator. The company maintained that, because staff worked a five‑day week, the correct divisor should have been five rather than seven. The FTT preferred HMRC’s position and concluded that the seven‑day approach to converting monthly pay to a daily rate was the proper...

In this issue Key developments UK immigration control: how it works Sponsored work Work sponsorship: sponsors Students EU law rights and EU settlement Challenging immigration decisions and enforcement Preventing illegal working Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content New Q&As Key developments Future developments—Immigration calendar Our Immigration calendar sets out key forthcoming developments for business immigration advisers. UK immigration control: how it works IHS rises to come into force from 6 February 2024 The Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2024, SI 2024/55, was made on 16 January 2024. Under article 1(2) of the Order, it comes into effect 21 days later, on 6 February 2024. The measure increases the Immigration Health Surcharge from £470 to £776 per annum for students, their dependants, Youth Mobility Scheme applicants and children under 18. For all other applications that must pay the Health Charge, the annual IHS rises from £624 to...

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note, which reviews the tax measures introduced by the government in response to the coronavirus pandemic and other tax steps of particular relevance, is not updated and is provided for background information only The government introduced a series of measures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, either specific to the UK tax regime or administered by HMRC. HMRC also published a business support finder tool to help businesses and the self-employed swiftly identify what financial assistance was available. See: Find coronavirus support for your business. For ease of use, this Practice Note is divided into: EMPLOYMENT SELF-EMPLOYMENT TRADING LOSSES VAT STAMP TAXES INTERNATIONAL TAXES MANAGEMENT AND LITIGATION INCENTIVISED INVESTMENT EMPLOYMENT Coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS)—CLOSED The coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS) offered support to employers with a UK payroll by way of a grant to help meet salary costs for ‘furloughed’ employees during the pandemic. The initial iteration...

This Practice Note traces differences between European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EU) 648/2012 (EU EMIR) and Assimilated Regulation (EU) 648/2012 (UK EMIR). How to use this Practice Note Use this Practice Note as a navigational aid when reviewing Assimilated Regulation (EU) 648/2012 (UK EMIR), by comparing it with the parallel provisions in Regulation (EU) 648/2012 (EU EMIR). Set out below are links to all Articles and Annexes in UK EMIR and EU EMIR respectively. Each section provides: the relevant Articles and Annexes as they currently stand, including: the latest changes made, when they were made, and details of the implementing/amending/repealing legislation proposed reforms to specified Articles a brief summary of points of divergence (ie how the relevant Article or Annex has evolved in the UK and/or the EU since 31 December 2020, being the end of the Brexit transition period) The degree of variance between the regimes is signposted as...

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 604/18) ARCHIVED – this hub captures the status as at the 18 July 2018 decision and is no longer being maintained. See the timeline, commentary, and related cases. Case facts Outline: European Commission Article 102 TFEU probe into Google LLC (Google) concerning exclusivity arrangements tied to the Android operating system (Case AT.40099). Latest development On 18 July 2018, the European Commission delivered its final decision in the case against Google for abusing a dominant position through Android-related exclusivity agreements. The Commission imposed a €4.34bn fine on Google and its parent, Alphabet Inc. (Alphabet). Google immediately stated its intention to appeal. Parties Google and Alphabet. Beyond its search service, Google owns the technology underpinning the Android smartphone operating platform and licences it to mobile handset manufacturers. In 2005, Google acquired the original creator of the Android mobile operating system and has continued to develop Android since. Today, roughly 80% of smart mobile devices...

Please use this checklist before entering into any exclusive agreement Determining whether exclusivity is liable to produce anti-competitive effects is not straightforward; multiple factors must be weighed, and in many cases exclusive deals may not be feasible at all. Above all, ensure the justification for exclusivity is not simply to undermine competitors or to delay or impede new entrants. If this is driving the exclusivity, from a competition regulator's perspective it may not matter whether the conduct gives rise to an anti-competitive effect. You must seek guidance from [ insert, eg the legal team ] where flagged in this checklist and whenever you have any questions or concerns. Exclusivity Factor Result Comments 1. Is the buyer required or encouraged to concentrate its orders for a particular product or service with just one supplier (often termed single-branding/exclusive sourcing)? Note that even an obligation or incentive to purchase more than 80% of requirements from a single supplier amounts to exclusivity...