Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
UT dismisses IR35 appeal by Sky Sports pundit ( PD & MJ Ltd v HMRC) PD & MJ Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 94 ( TCC). Mr Thompson featured for many years on Sky’s Soccer Saturday. Between 2013 and 2017, his work for Sky was delivered through the appellant company. HMRC concluded that the intermediaries rules in the Income Tax ( Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 ( ITEPA 2003), ss 48–61, governed the arrangements and therefore raised PAYE and NIC assessments on the company. The company appealed. The First-tier Tribunal ( FTT) rejected the appeal, applying the three-stage framework from HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 501. The company then appealed to the Upper Tribunal ( UT), alleging that the FTT committed errors of law at each stage. The UT started with stage one, namely construing the actual contract in place...
HMRC v Innovative Bites Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 293 VATA 1994, Sch 8 Group 1 provides that VAT at the zero rate applies to food, but it also highlights excepted items, which are subject to VAT at the standard rate......
FTT finds LLP not trading and disallows tax deductions and R& D relief ( L. R. R& D LLP v HMRC) L. R. R& D LLP v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 245 ( TC) HMRC contended the LLP’s losses stemmed from a tax avoidance arrangement, using the LLP as a vehicle to manufacture losses for members to shelter other income. HMRC maintained the arrangement’s purpose was to generate artificial losses, later allocated to members to offset against unrelated income streams elsewhere personally. In outline, the LLP had secured rights to commercialise a transdermal patch system for administering medicines from NDM Technologies Limited (‘ NDM’). Under a framework agreement (the ‘ Framework Agreement’), it outsourced associated research and development (‘ R& D’) to NPL Sub- Contractor Limited (‘ NPL- Sub’). The LLP paid NPL- Sub £8 million for that R& D, funded 74% by members’ capital with the...
Lynch v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 300 ( TC) The appellant took part in a promoted tax avoidance arrangement spanning the 2010–11 to the 2013–14 tax years. The planning was disclosed pursuant to DOTAS. Participants made claims to deduct interest relief for borrowing to finance an investment in a partnership interest (sections 383, 398 of the Income Tax Act 2007 ( ITA 2007)). It was ultimately accepted that this element of the planning was ineffective. The arrangements comprised a series of steps whereby a limited partnership bought and sold qualifying corporate bonds ( QCBs). HMRC contended that, notwithstanding the failure of the arrangement as a whole, steps produced income chargeable as interest. HMRC opened enquiries and issued formal discovery assessments, comprising a charge to income tax on interest characterised as discount (sections 369, 371, 381, Income Tax ( Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 ( ITTOIA...
In this issue: Budgets and Finance Bills Companies and corporation tax International Funds Real estate tax Employment Taxes Individuals and income tax Energy and environment Anti-avoidance Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Budgets and Finance Bills Spring Statement 2025 The Chancellor of the Exchequer is set to deliver her Spring Statement to Parliament on Wednesday 26 March 2025. Finance Bill 2025 to receive Royal Assent Royal Assent for the Finance Bill 2025 is expected on 20 March 2025, at which point it will be enacted as the Finance Act 2025. This comes after the Bill’s second and third readings in the House of Lords on 19 March 2025 and the usual bypassing of the committee stage. The House of Lords made no...
Which consultation does this Government response relate to? This Government response concerns the former administration’s ‘ Tackling non‑compliance in the umbrella company market’ consultation, issued in June 2023. It is not the first exercise of its kind; it follows a series of reviews in this space, including the ‘ Call for evidence on the umbrella company market’ published in November 2021. What are the conclusions reached following this consultation? The consultation response spans 75 pages and touches on numerous issues, but these broadly fall into two strands: employment rights and tax. In keeping with earlier consultations on the subject, the outcomes and forward recommendations contain no real surprises. While an outright prohibition on umbrella companies was a conceivable option, the government, acknowledging the role of compliant operators, has not proposed a ban. Instead, it intends to legislate for tighter oversight of umbrella companies and to tackle tax...
Louwman v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 295 ( TC) This appeal examined the taxpayer’s income tax liabilities for the 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 tax years. She was resident and domiciled in the UK throughout, having become deemed domiciled on 6 April 2018. Before that, she had settled shares into four offshore trusts. Those shares were in companies holding investments that produced offshore income gains ( OIG) and accrued income profits ( AIP) in the years in question. In outline, OIG are gains realised on disposing of an interest in an offshore fund that does not report its income to HMRC, while AIP are profits arising on the disposal of securities to the extent they represent built-up interest. As a general rule, OIG and AIP are treated as income of the year of disposal for the person making the disposal, or anyone treated as doing so. Owing to her...
In this issue: Employment taxes Individuals National Insurance contributions ( NICs) Stamp duty land tax ( SDLT) Tax compliance Value added tax ( VAT) Wales Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Employment taxes Parliament makes Regulations to increase the official rate of interest on beneficial loans On 5 March 2025, Parliament approved the Taxes ( Interest Rate) ( Amendment) Regulations 2025 ( SI 2025/270). The Regulations raise the 'official rate of interest' on beneficial loans (see ITEPA 2003, Pt 7, Ch 3) from 2.25% to 3.75% a year with effect from 6 April 2025. For tax purposes, the cash equivalent of the advantage from such loans—calculated as the gap between interest at the official rate and the amount actually paid—is generally treated as earnings. These changes follow the government's Autumn Budget 2024 announcement that HMRC's late payment interest on unpaid tax liabilities would rise by 1.5...
Hastings Insurance Services Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 275 ( TC) Article 169(c) permits suppliers to reclaim VAT on costs linked to specified exempt supplies of services where those services are provided to a customer established outside the EU. It was agreed that, for VAT purposes, Gibraltar was not an EU member state (see Hastings Insurance Services Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 27 ( TC) (the 2018 decision)). In that 2018 decision, the tribunal determined that the appellant was entitled to recover input tax attributable to supplies made to Advantage, because Advantage belonged outside the EU and did not have a fixed establishment in the UK for VAT purposes. Following the 2018 decision, the relevant UK legislation — the Value Added Tax ( Input Tax) ( Specified Supplies) Order 1999, SI 1999/3121 — was amended......
Sammy Garden Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 274 ( TC) A landscaping professional who had been a sole trader subsequently formed Sammy Garden Ltd ( SGL) on 9 March 2021. On 20 May 2021, a VAT1 was filed with HMRC to register SGL for VAT, showing 9 March 2021 as the EDR. HMRC took two months to process the application and then provided SGL with its VRN, confirming the effective start date as 9 March. In HMRC’s view, this required the taxpayer to account for VAT on all supplies made from that date forward......
In this issue: Budgets and Finance Bills Taxes management and litigation Employment taxes VAT Funds Energy International Current issues Lex Talk®Tax: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Budgets and Finance Bills Finance Bill 2025 substantively enacted On Monday, 3 March, the Finance Bill 2025 cleared report stage and its third reading successfully in the House of Commons, with the government’s report-stage amendments duly agreed. For IFRS and UK GAAP, the Bill is now regarded as ‘substantively enacted’. The text transmitted from the Commons had its first reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 March. The Lords’ second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading are all firmly set for Wednesday, 19 March. To follow ongoing amendments to the Finance Bill as it moves through Parliament, see: Tax— Finance Bill 2025 tracker. CIOT issues Finance Bill 2025 briefing The CIOT has issued a briefing on the...
Advanced Hair Technology Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 241 ( TC) The appellant, a provider of hair transplant procedures addressing male pattern baldness (clinically termed androgenetic alopecia ( AGA)), argued its offerings amounted to medical care and qualified for VAT exemption, as their aim was to restore a patient’s health. HMRC, however, maintained that the dominant objective of the service was cosmetic rather than the treatment of an illness, and therefore taxable. The dispute centred on whether restoring hair for AGA fell within healthcare, or primarily delivered aesthetic enhancement......
Chris Poulton v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 240 ( TC) The dispute centred on HMRC’s refusal of the appellant’s request for a VAT repayment under the DIY Housebuilders Scheme. The appellant had paid about £10,000 described as VAT to a contractor for groundworks, reflecting VAT shown on invoices for services supplied to him. It was accepted by all parties that those services should have been zero-rated for VAT. The supplier subsequently went into liquidation. The appellant wrote to HMRC seeking advice on how to recover VAT that had been charged in error. HMRC treated that correspondence as a repayment claim under the DIY Housebuilders Scheme. HMRC rejected the claim and applied to dismiss the appellant’s appeal on the basis that the FTT lacked jurisdiction to determine it. The central question was whether the appellant could rely on the Reemtsma principle. Under that...
Original news Mr R ( CAS-54306- K6B1) – 26 October 2024. Summary The Pensions Ombudsman dismissed a complaint concerning a scheme’s delay in crystallising pension benefits during a transfer, which the member argued caused higher-rate tax on future withdrawals and used more of his lifetime allowance than would otherwise have been necessary. Although the delay was held to be maladministration, responsibility for tax liabilities arising from subsequent crystallisation events did not fall on either the transferring or the receiving scheme. In addition, any loss he said he suffered was offset by growth in his fund over the period, which produced a larger tax-free lump sum and, in total, a lower tax bill. This decision is a reminder that a professional will not be accountable for every loss flowing from a breach of duty... What were the facts? ......
In this issue: Budgets and Finance Bills Private equity and venture capital Employment taxes Funds Anti-avoidance International VAT Companies and corporation tax Individuals and income tax Devolution Taxes management and litigation Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Budgets and Finance Bills Government proposes amendments to Finance Bill 2025 On 25 February 2025, the government tabled 66 changes to Finance Bill 2025 for consideration at report stage on 3 March 2025. These changes mainly concern clauses 37–40 and Schedules 9–13 on replacing the domicile rules. Separate explanatory notes for the report stage amendments have also been issued. To follow amendments as the Bill progresses through Parliament, see: Tax— Finance Bill 2025 tracker. See: LNB News 26/02/2025 18. Private equity and venture capital HMRC publishes new carried interest guidance HMRC has released two new pages in its Investment Funds Manual ( IFM37800 and IFM37850) designed to help taxpayers lessen the chance of HMRC opening...
Original news Mr S ( CAS-44597- S2Z6)—17 October 2024 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman dismissed a complaint about how the preservation laws were applied to a scheme’s benefit structure and accrual design. The scheme rules imposed both an accrual cap and an earnings cap. The Ombudsman concluded there was no breach of preservation legislation because the scheme’s uniform benefit accrual operated as an exception to the general principle that short-service benefits must be calculated on the same basis as long-service benefits. In addition, a 1989 change to HMRC rules did not require the removal of the caps that had been hard-coded into the scheme rules. The decision highlights that older HMRC provisions, once embedded within a pension scheme’s own rules, can be difficult to interpret and apply in practice. What were the facts? Mr S was a deferred member of the Svenska UK Retirement and Death Benefit Scheme (the...
Chelsea Cloisters Management Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 205 ( TC) Chelsea Cloisters Management Ltd ( CCML) acts as the managing entity for a London property known as Chelsea Cloisters. Although other points were examined in depth, the central issue on appeal concerned the VAT treatment of CCML’s supplies and the consequent obligation to register for VAT arising from those supplies. HMRC concluded that CCML had been providing management services chargeable at the standard rate and, therefore, should have been registered for VAT on a compulsory basis. CCML contended that its supplies were covered by a VAT extra‑statutory concession for domestic service charges ( ESC 3.18), rendering them exempt from VAT, and that it had a legitimate expectation to rely upon that concession in practice. The supplies made by CCML were indeed the subject of the appeal......
HMRC v Asset House Piccadilly Ltd [2025] UKFTT 206 ( TC) HMRC applied, pursuant to section 314A of the Finance Act 2004 ( FA 2004), for an order that AHP’s 'corporate remuneration trust scheme' arrangements were notifiable arrangements within FA 2004, s 306(1). Those arrangements, put in place by AHP, allowed directors to extract profits from the company without an income tax charge, by having loans advanced in place of a reduced salary. In its application, HMRC specified AHP as the 'promoter' of the arrangements. The FTT held that the arrangements were notifiable under FA 2004, s 306(1) because they enabled participants to obtain a tax advantage; the securing of that advantage was a main benefit; and the arrangements fell within the prescribed descriptions of confidentiality, premium fee and standardised tax products. Accordingly, they were notifiable under FA 2004, s 306(1)......
A Taxpayer v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2025] EWCA Civ 106 What are the practical implications of this case? This case matters to those advising individuals on UK tax residence and the statutory residence test, and to any taxpayer intending to rely on para 22(4). After the Court of Appeal ruling, practitioners can inform taxpayers that some degree of choice, when deciding whether to come to or depart the UK, does not of itself bar the day-count exemption within the statutory residence test; an issue thrown into doubt by the Upper Tribunal in July 2023... Advisers may now explain that being prevented from leaving the UK is not confined to physical or legal restraint. The exemption can apply where circumstances are objectively compelling, including the moral obligations operating on the taxpayer at the time. Accordingly, a taxpayer’s response to, for example, the illness of a close...
In this issue: Partnerships Individuals and income tax Budgets and Finance Bills International VAT Taxes management and litigation Employment taxes Anti-avoidance Devolution Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Partnerships HMRC guidance on condition C of the LLP salaried member rules HMRC has agreed to revise its guidance on how condition C of the LLP salaried member rules applies within sections 863A–863G of the Income Tax ( Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 ( ITTOIA 2005). This revision follows discussions with the CIOT about the operation of the contribution criterion requirement in particular. HMRC has told the CIOT that its stance remains that the TAAR is engaged where the primary purpose, or one of the principal purposes, of the...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
