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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
In this issue: Companies and corporation tax VAT Funds Employment taxes Taxes management and litigation Stamp and transfer taxes Lex Talk®Tax: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Companies and corporation tax UT confirms FTT finding that distributions from a non- UK company were not of a capital nature ( Alexander Beard v HMRC) As noted in last week’s Tax weekly highlights, in Alexander Beard [2024] UKUT 73 ( TCC) the Upper Tribunal ( UT) affirmed the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s ( FTT) decision that the amounts received by the taxpayer were (i) dividends for UK tax purposes, yet (ii) not dividends of a capital nature for the purposes of section 402 of the Income Tax ( Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. See News...
Barclays Bank plc v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 246 ( TC) In late 2008, the Barclays group undertook the following measures to bolster its Tier 1 capital ratios, thereby sidestepping the need for a government rescue: BBPLC issued £3bn of RCIs to two strategic investors as well as other institutional backers; and concurrently, its parent, Barclays plc ( Barclays), granted five-year share warrants over its own stock to the strategic investors for a nominal amount. BBPLC received £3m for the RCIs but recorded the arrangements on the footing that £800m of the overall £3bn was, in reality, consideration paid by the investors for the warrants. As a result, its accounts reflected a cash inflow of £2.2bn attributed to the RCIs and £800,000 recognised as a capital contribution from Barclays. The disparity between £2.2bn......
Alexander Beard v HMRC [2024] UKUT 73 ( TCC) The taxpayer, Mr Beard, held shares in Glencore plc, a company incorporated in Jersey and domiciled in Switzerland. Between the tax years 2011–12 and 2015–16 he received cash distributions taken from the company’s share premium account, together with an in specie distribution in 2015 (the Distributions). HMRC issued a closure notice treating the Distributions as chargeable to income tax. Mr Beard appealed, contending that, because they were funded from the share premium account, the Distributions were dividends of a capital nature. This mattered because ITTOIA 2005, s 402 states that dividends from a non- UK resident company are subject to income tax, save for ‘dividends of a capital nature’. On that footing, Mr Beard maintained that the Distributions fell outside the income tax charge and were instead within the scope of capital gains tax......
In this issue: Individuals and income tax International real estate tax Stamp and transfer taxes Key developments VAT International energy and environment Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Individuals and income tax Regulations postpone commencement of digital reporting and record-keeping provisions New regulations confirm the previously announced delay to Making Tax Digital for Income Tax Self Assessment ( MTD for ITSA). The Finance ( No 2) Act 2017, sections 60 and 61 and Schedule 14 ( Digital Reporting and Record- Keeping) ( Appointed Day) ( Amendment) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/422, were made on 25 March 2024. They move the appointed day for section 60(1) to (3), section 61(1) to (5), and Schedule 14 of the Finance ( No 2) Act 2017 from 6 April 2024 to 6 April 2026. See: LNB News 26/03/2024 29. Offshore payments aren't taxable services, UK court rules Law360: Two UK residents are not liable to tax on...
Investment and Securities Trust Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 230 ( TC) The dwelling at the heart of the option was owned by a director of the appellant, who was also a majority shareholder in the appellant’s parent. HMRC issued an SDLT assessment and closure notices, with the effect that ATED became payable in relation to the option, on the footing that the option was neither acquired nor held by the appellant exclusively for development and resale within a property development trade; consequently, reliefs from the 15% SDLT rate and ATED were not available. In their submissions, HMRC contended that the option was not obtained or retained exclusively for the prescribed purpose and emphasised the key distinction between an “exclusively” test and a “main purpose” test. HMRC maintained that further purposes for taking the option included: to give the appellant additional time to raise finance to...
Harjono and another v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 228 ( TC) The taxpayers acquired a property comprising a residential barn conversion with three acres of land. Roughly half of the acreage was a fenced paddock. This paddock bordered the garden and had two gates: one opening from the garden and another giving access to the road. The taxpayers agreed with a friend that she could graze her horse on the paddock for a fixed six-month period in return for a £50 monthly payment. Both parties signed the agreement before completion of the purchase, but it remained undated until after completion, when the taxpayers’ solicitor added the date as the effective date. The taxpayers filed their SDLT return on a mixed-use basis. They maintained that the paddock did not constitute part of the dwelling’s grounds because it was being used for commercial purposes...
Backing the residents, the UT dismissed HMRC’s claim that each person was liable for £606,480 ( US$766,000) arising from transfers their associated company, located in the island jurisdiction of Jersey, sent to the German arm of a Luxembourg enterprise called Centennial SARL......
Colchester Institute Corporation ( No 2) v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 191 ( TC) These decisions relate to separate VAT return periods for the appellant; however, the central question in both is the VAT treatment of public monies paid to a further education provider for delivering education and vocational training. The appellant reclaimed VAT on expenditure incurred on a construction project that did not qualify for the zero rate of VAT, and initially declared output tax using the Lennartz method in respect of the project costs......
Webster v HMRC [2024] EWHC 530 ( KB) An individual with dual UK and US nationality challenged the passing of information about her financial affairs by her bank to the US tax authorities, said to have been carried out pursuant to the agreement between the UK and the USA that gives effect to the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act ( FATCA). She contended that HMRC, in its role as data controller, acted unlawfully in making a bulk disclosure on two bases. First, she alleged that the transfer in question violated her data protection rights because appropriate safeguards were absent for such transfers, and that US law failed to secure a level of protection for data subjects that was adequate under data protection legislation......
Delaney v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 214 ( TC) The taxpayer submitted a claim for entrepreneurs’ relief in her tax return for the year ended 5 April 2016. The claim related to the transfer of her business—operating two nursery schools—to her close company ( MDNSL). Until 3 December 2014, a person disposing of a business, including goodwill, to a connected limited company could claim entrepreneurs’ relief, reducing the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 10%. From 3 December 2014, by sections 169L and 169LA of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 ( TCGA 1992), that relief was withdrawn for such disposals. Under TCGA 1992, s 28, the timing of a disposal is the date on which the contract giving rise to it is made. The taxpayer maintained that a contract for the disposal existed before 3 December 2014. HMRC determined that, without a...
Some 25% of financial advisers want pension reform to reduce the tax burden New findings from a November 2023 survey of 200 financial advisers by Aegon UK and research consultancy Next Wealth highlight key priorities among respondents, according to the study: 25% back pension reforms to ease the overall tax burden 17% call for a more consistent approach to pension rules such as the lifetime allowance 12% point to the need for simpler tax and pension systems Steven Cameron, pensions director at Aegon, said the evidence clearly shows advisers want a future government to ease consumers’ tax burden to better support retirement clients. On 6 March 2024, the government announced a payroll tax cut as part of its election-year spring Budget. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said National Insurance, the payroll tax deducted from workers’ earnings to fund government benefit programmes, would be reduced......
In this issue: Budgets and Finance Bills VAT Employment taxes Real estate taxes Companies and corporation tax International Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary New and updated content Trackers Useful information Budgets and Finance Bills Finance ( No 2) Bill 2024 published Finance ( No 2) Bill 2024 is now available. Also referred to as the Spring Finance Bill 2024 ( SFB 2024) in the Spring Budget 2024 documentation, it was presented to the House of Commons and received its first reading on 13 March 2024. The date of the second reading will be confirmed. Once enacted, SFB 2024 will become the Finance ( No 2) Act 2024. For detailed commentary on the SFB 2024 and to track its progress through Parliament, see News Analysis: Publication of Spring Finance Bill 2024 and Tax—...
WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 181 ( TC) Under Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 ( VATA 1994), food is ordinarily zero-rated, though specified excepted items are taxed at the standard rate. By way of example, cakes attract the zero rate, whereas confectionery is subject to VAT at the standard rate. In this case, it was common ground between the parties that, if the items under consideration were not confectionery, they would fall within the scope of the zero rate......
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v HMRC [2024] EWCA Civ 177 It was undisputed that the appellant, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, qualified as a public authority for the purposes of section 41A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 ( VATA 1994). The question was whether, in providing car parking facilities, the Trust satisfied the two statutory conditions in VATA 1994, s 41A for treatment as a non-taxable person. The car parking services had to be supplied in the course of activities undertaken by the Trust acting as a public authority; and The supply must not give rise to a significant distortion of competition. The Court concluded that both requirements were fulfilled. The notion of a “special legal regime” was pertinent to the first condition and stems from Court of Justice of the European Union authority on the...
Niasse v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 179 The taxpayer, Mr N, was a professional footballer with Lokomotiv Moscow who transferred to Everton FC in 2016. To conduct the transfer negotiations, he engaged an agent under a standard representation contract. The taxpayer, the agent and Everton then entered a tripartite contract under which the agent would act for both the taxpayer and the club in the negotiations and would provide further services to the club whilst Mr N was employed by it. That tripartite arrangement specified that the fees payable by Mr N to the agent in respect of the transfer were to be paid by Everton. It was not contested that Everton’s payment of the agent’s fees constituted either employment income or......
Setting out his election-year Spring Budget in the House of Commons on 6 March 2024 Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced that newcomers to the UK will not be charged tax on overseas income and capital gains for their first four years living in Britain. After that window, those who remain will be taxed in line with other residents. The changes take effect from April 2025 and, having been heavily signposted, came as no shock. Legal professionals foresee a short-lived spike in requests for counselling and advice, but caution that the policy shift could ultimately prove counterproductive if affluent, mobile clients opt for jurisdictions with kinder tax terms. Alex Boothman, a partner at Keystone Law, similarly expects a marked rise in instructions for legal advisers—albeit briefly. He anticipates the reforms will jolt the market in the near term and may then lessen the ongoing need for advice if fewer...
Geoffrey Richard Haworth and others v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKUT 58 ( TCC) The taxpayers were settlors of family trusts that participated in a ‘round‑the‑world’ tax arrangement aimed at avoiding UK CGT on share disposals connected with a stock market flotation. For the plan to succeed, it depended on the trusts’ place of effective management ( POEM) being in Mauritius at the disposal date, via the UK– Mauritius double tax treaty residency tie‑breaker. The arrangement closely resembled that in Smallwood, where the Court of Appeal upheld the Special Commissioners’ finding that, at the material time, the trusts’ POEM was the UK rather than Mauritius. Taking account of those Smallwood rulings, the FTT examined POEM by identifying where genuine top‑level (that is, realistic and positive) management of the trusts actually took place. Applying that framework, and on the evidence, the FTT...
In this edition: Budgets and Finance Bills Stamp and transfer taxes Share and asset sales Anti-avoidance Companies and corporation tax International Taxes management and litigation VAT Employment taxes Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary New and updated content Trackers Useful information Budgets and Finance Bills Spring Budget 2024 On Wednesday 6 March 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, presented the government’s Spring Budget......
Spring Budget 2024—was it a Budget for business? Follow the link to watch the video...
On Wednesday, 6 March 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, presented the government’s Spring Budget. In a year when a general election is anticipated, he repeatedly cast it as a programme for long-term growth, concluding with the line ‘growth up, jobs up and taxes down’. He also outlined tax measures aimed at making the system ‘simpler and fairer’. While scrapping some reliefs may streamline matters, the backdrop of the main and small profits corporation tax rates holding at 25% and 19%, personal allowances and income tax bands staying frozen (and expected to remain so for a few more years), and the annual exempt amount for capital gains tax being halved to £3,000 from 6 April 2024, makes it uncertain whether the electorate will experience the changes as fairer. Key announcements...
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
