Pump Court Tax Chat

David Yates KC and Sadiya Choudhury KC take a look a some of the latest employment tax cases and recent changes to employment tax legislation.Umbrella companies2:01 Mainpay: Mainpay was an umbrella company providing the services of various employees whose assignments were sourced by an employment agency. The employment point in the case was the nature of the "overarching contract" between Mainpay and the workers, and specifically whether this allowed Mainpay to reimburse travel and subsidence expenses without accounting for income tax and NIC. Consideration of the Readymix Concrete test. Could you argue a "single discontinuous working employment relationship"? Legislation has now made arguing for overarching contracts very difficult (s339A ITPA). Other aspects of this case are discussed in the most recent Tax Litigation Update podcast. 9:20 PPS Umbrella and VAT mini-umbrella fraud category: Elphysic being the lead case which is heading for the Supreme Court. However new legislation is coming in April 2026 which makes umbrella companies jointly and severally liable for NICs. The government is also reviewing the operation of umbrella companies more widely.SARS10:39 Saunders: stock appreciation rights (SARS) under a long term incentive plan. NB this case is currently on appeal. When an employee is promised something (like a contractual right) - is it the contractual right which is their earnings or is it the payment made later under it? Does Abbott v Philbin still hold good? Do SARS have a value in their own right? Does the employee derive realistic immediate value?IR35 legislation 21:51 Bryan Robson Ltd: payments for acting as an ambassador for Manchester United. Was it an employment contract under the hypothetical employment test? Whether all or part of the consideration was attributable to the contract allowing exploitation of image rights and, if so, was this outside IR35? Case is on its way to the UT.27:50 New offset mechanism in the tax legislation to allow payments to be offset against PAYE liabilities. Will this mean a decrease in IR35 cases?Payments in lieu of notice28:53 Rawlinson: was the payment in lieu of notice (PILON) (the employee was disabled due to cancer surgery) subject to income tax as earnings? Guidance on operation of the exception of s401/406 ITPA. Absence of express language as to the purpose of a PILON not necessarily fatal but leads to tax uncertainty.Salary sacrifice schemes35:43 Best Connection: the company set up a travel payment scheme (BSS) linked to a salary sacrifice scheme.38:20 Salary sacrifice legislation under ITPA: the new rules mean that salary sacrifice schemes are now brought within the benefits legislation with some exceptions (eg electric cars, pensions, bicycles). However, contributions about £2k will be subject to NICs from April 2029. Whilst Best Connection predates all this legislation, it is still helpful on whether something is actually a salary sacrifice scheme. There is draft legislation - National Insurance Contributions Employer Pensions Contributions Bill - and further guidance promised.Agency workers legislation41:14 Tyler Security: were the dog handling services providing "personal services"? The supervision, direction and control "SDC" test.CitationsLegislationss 338 and 339A Income Tax (Earnings & Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA)s16 ITEPAChapter 5, part 7 ITEPAss49 - 61 ITEPA (IR 35)Schedule 1AB ITEPAs62 ITEPAs406 ITEPAs65 ITEPAs69A and 69B ITEPANational Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions Billss44 - 47 ITEPAChapters 7 and 10 Part 2 ITEPACasesMainpay Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 1290Exchequer Solutions Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKUT 25 (TCC)Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497HMRC v Payroll & Pension Services (PPS Umbrella Company) Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 995Elphysic Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 236 (TCC)Saunders v HMRC [2025] UKUT 374 (TCC)Abbott v Philbin [1961] AC 352Bridges v Hewitt [1957] 1 WLR 674 (also known as Bridges v Bearsley)Bryan Robson Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 56 (TC)Basic Broadcasting Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKUT 165 (TCC)HMRC v S&L Barnes Ltd [2024] UKUT 262 (TCC)HMRC v Professional Games Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29Atholl House Productions Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 501Kickabout Productions Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 502.Rawlinson v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 45 (TC)HMRC v Tottenham Hotspur Ltd [2017] UKUT 453 (TCC)Hasted v Horner [1995] STC 766The Best Connection Group Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1103 (TC)Tyler Security Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1250 (TC)Producer: Peter ShevlinA pod60 production for Pump Court Tax Chambers

Ben Elliott, Quinlan Windle and Sam Glover look at recent developments in litigation focusing on procedural issues such as late appeals (Medpro), burden of proof (Sintra), the jurisdiction of the tribunal, disclosure and duty of candour, use of AI in writing judgments, assessments and penalties (eg Mainpay).2:07 Court of Appeal judgment in Medpro (late appeals and in particular the Martland approach) – The UT can give guidance and the correct guidance in relation to late appeals is theMartland approach. Higher courts can only interfere with that guidance if there has been an error of law. Has the CA widened the grounds for appeal? Some practical points arising from the decision.20:50 Sintra - Court of Appeal judgment concerning burden of proof in penalty cases.25:33 Jurisdiction of tribunal to consider public law points – in particular the recent decision in Morrisons. How to protect the taxpayer's position with parallel judicial review proceedings and statutory appeals.38:30 Use of AI in writing judgments – How are the courts using AI?40:45 Disclosure and the duty of candour – Do HMRC have a duty of candour before the FTT? Is it the same duty as in judicial review cases? Is it only HMRC who have a duty of candour in FTT cases?43:40 Assessments, penalties and causation - Discussion of recent cases and principles laid down in Mainpay, Delphi and Boston Consulting Group.CitationsCasesMedpro Healthcare Ltd & Ruppai v HMRC [2026] EWCA Civ 14, [2026] STC 253Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 2 All ER 430Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2015] 1 All ER 880HMRC v McCarthy & Stone [2014] UKUT 196 (TCC), [2014] STC 973BPP Holdings Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKSC 55, [2017] 4 All ER 756Perinpanathan v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2010] EWCA Civ 40, [2010] 1 WLR 1508Competition & Market Authority v Flynn Pharma Ltd [2022] UKSC 14, [2023] 1 All ER 97Price and others v HMRC [2015] UKUT 164 (TCC)Carbon Six Engineering Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 177 (TC)HMRC v Sintra Global [2025] EWCA Civ 1661Henryk Zeman SP Zoo v HMRC [2021] UKUT 182 (TCC), [2021] STC 1706Treasures of Brazil v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 929Caredav Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKUT 179 (TCC)Chelsea Cloisters v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 205 (TC), [2025] SFTD 1105Morrison Supermarkets v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC)R (on the application of Archer) v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1962, [2018] STC 38R (on the application of Weis) v HMRC [2025] EWHC 2479 (Admin), [2025] STC 1659Cobalt Data Centre 2 LLP v HMRC [2019] UKUT 342 (TCC), [2020] STC 23Evans v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 01112 (TC)Jordi Carulla Font v HMRC [2025] EWHC 3057 (Admin), [2025] STC 1935Nottingham Forest Football Club v HMRC [2024] UKUT 145, [2024] STC 1105Delphi Derivatives v HMRC [2026] UKUT 21 (TCC), [2026] STC 292O'Neil & Ors v HMRC [2026] UKUT 13 (TCC), [2026] STC 199Boston Consulting Group v HMRC [2026] UKUT 25 (TCC), [2026] STC 105Lands Luo Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1207 (TC)Jeneruhl Trading Ltd & Another v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 735 (TC)LegislationCPR rule 3.9Rule 28 procedures29 Taxes Management Acts36 Taxes Management ActProducer: Peter ShevlinA pod60 production for Pump Court Tax Chambers

Laura Poots KC and Thomas Chacko consider classification and characterisation in VAT cases.2:00 What is meant by classification and characterisation: when you have identified you have a single supply or a set of multiple supplies, what is that supply? And is the position completely clear following Gray & Farrar?2:50 The first step is identification of supply - to decide if you have a single or multiple supply - and then one looks at classification. Explanation of the two bases on which a single supply might be identified.4:56 Is classification the final word on how the supply will be taxed?Case law and what are the tests?7:26 Card Protection Plan (CPP) Supplies – principal-ancillary supplies and how they are classified.8:12 Levob Supplies - In classifying these, different courts have looked at "overarching" or "economic reality" test and the "predominant element" test.10:45 Gray & Farrar. Court of Appeal has now confirmed that there is a hierarchy of three tests (1) predominant element (2) principal-ancillary (3) overarching supply.12:00 Predominance test: This is the primary test. Look at economic purpose and the typical customer (qualitative as well as quantitative).13:55 Principal-ancillary test: a sense check on predominance, but also useful in working out the number of elements.15:41 Overarching test: can assist in deciding predominance.17:00 In applying these tests, how do you identify the elements of the supply?How does this all work in practice?19:56 HMRC don't seem to view Gray & Farrar as settling the test in every case. What are HMRC's arguments and what are the problems with them?21:05 HMRC argument 1: Individual elements cannot be singled out.22:06 HMRC argument 2: subset of Levob supplies where no conceptual room for predominance test. HMRC's reliance on Blackrock and Deutsche Bank.29:19 A practical example - Story Terrace. Court takes a lot of notice of contractual documentation and marketing descriptions. Potential relevance of online reviews. Demonstration of the importance of considering identification before classification.CITATIONSBlackrock Investment Management (UK) Ltd v HMRC [2020] STC 1445Card Protection Plan Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (Case C-349/96) [1999] STC 270Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Hochst v Deutsche Bank AG (C-44/11) [2012] STC 1951HMRC v Gray & Farrar International LLP [2023] STC 327Levob Verzekeringen BV and another v Staatssecretaris van Financien (C-41/04) [2006] STC 766Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové (C-18/12) [2014] STC 1703Spectrum Community Health CIC v HMRC [2024] STC 1124Story Terrace v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1554 (TC)Target Group Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 226Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (Case C-251/05) [2006] STC 1671European Commission v France (Case C-94/09) [2012] STC 573EC v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-274/15) [2017] ECRProducer: Peter ShevlinA pod60 production for Pump Court Tax Chambers

David Ewart KC and Laura Ruxandu look at judicial review in relation to tax cases from a procedural as well as substantive perspective.when you can bring judicial review in a tax case.what to do if you have alternative remedies.the jurisdiction of the administrative court.procedure for judicial review.1: 13 The three broad areas in which you can bring judicial review in tax cases.3:19 Area 1: Extra-statutory rulings - where HMRC resile on an earlier representation personal to the taxpayer. These claims cannot be brought in the tax tribunal. Whilst most of the case law is won by the HMRC, equally there are a lot of cases in which the HMRC accept the taxpayer's challenge.10:49 Area 2: Where the tax payer has read and relied on a general statement in a published document/statement.20:53 Area 3: Procedural errors- breach of natural justice, applications for disclosure.26:42 Judicial review should be viewed as a last resort. It is a residual remedy and is not available if alternative remedies are available.26:56 The jurisdiction of the administrative court to hear public law arguments such as judicial review.36:00 Procedure for judicial review. You need to apply for permission. Differences to the Tribunal eg time limits, pre-action protocol. Very important to get early professional advice and evidence to cover the application as well as judicial review (if you get permission).44:52 Increasing role of Upper Tribunal.47:41 Difference of appeals to appeals in the Tribunal.48:00 Strategic importance of threatening judicial review.CasesR (Hawarth) v HMRC [2021] UKSC 25R (Locke) v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1909R (Refinitiv UK Holdings Ltd) & Anor v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00257 (TCC)R (Airline Placement Ltd) v HMRC [2023] EWHC 1191 (Admin)Murphy & Linnett v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 497R (Aozora GMAC Investment Ltd) v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1643R (Rettig Heating Group Ltd) v HMRC [2025] UKUT 143 (TCC)R (Archer) v HMRC [2017] EWHC 296 (Admin)Zeman v HMRC [2021] UKUT 182 (TCC)Harrison v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00038Caerdav Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00179 (TCC)Reed Employment v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 805MCM v HMRCGlencore v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1716Legislations50 Taxes Management ActProducer: Peter ShevlinA pod60 production for Pump Court Tax Chambers

LegislationPart III and Schedule 5 of the Finance Act 1996Section 42 and Schedule 12 of the Finance Act 2018EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC)Consultation on Reform of Landfill Tax in England and Northern Ireland (April 2025)Paris Agreement 2015s1 Climate Change Act 2008Renewed Agenda for European Union – United Kingdom cooperation common understanding (May 2025)Environment Act 2021The Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2023, regulation 2 CasesWaste Recycling Group Ltd v HMRC [2008] EWCA Civ 849; [2009] STC 200Patersons of Greenoakhill Ltd v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 1250; [2017] 1 WLR 1210; [2017] STC 225Devon Waste Management Ltd v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 584; [2021] 4 WLR 89; [2021] STC 990Joshua Stevens | Pump Court Tax ChambersZizhen Yang | Pump Court Tax ChambersProducer: Peter ShevlinA pod60 production for Pump Court Tax Chambers

Thomas Chacko and Quinlan Windle discuss the options for tax breaks in relation to spending on R&D:outline of scheme and changes made in 2024what R&D meanscan you claim when R&D is contracted outpractical points about how to deal with enquiries bearing in mind recent case law1:25 outline of the scheme pre the Finance Act 2024 - basic deduction and 2 further possible schemes (relief for small and medium enterprises + R&D credit).2:54 effect of Finance Act 20243:23 what is R&D? A common question as well as major issue in many of the cases.8:03 the effect of HMRC now taking very robust stance on R&D tax credit claims and requiring cases to pass a very high threshold. Issues with highly technical areas eg software. Tax payers must be able to explain highly technical projects to HMRC/tribunal in a way that enables them to understand why the work merits the tax credit.18:40 restrictions on qualifying expenditure in recent case law and following the Finance Act 2024.37:09 practical problems in enquiries and litigation. Also the use of ADR.CitationsLegislation and guidelinesCorporation Tax Act 2009Finance Act 2024BEIS Guidelines - latest update March 2023 (originally the DTI Guidelines)HMRC Guidance - CIRD84250HMRC CIRD161000Case lawHadee Engineering Co Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2020] UKFTT 497 (TC)BE Studios v Smith & Williamson Ltd [2005] EWHC 1506Flame Tree Publishing v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 349 (TC)Get Onbord v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 617 (TCC)Quinn (London) Ltd v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 437 (TC)Collins Construction Ltd (TC09332) - 21 October 2024Stage One Creative Services [2024] UKFTT 1059 (TC)

Rupert Baldry KC and Sadiya Choudhury KC examine how the customs and excise duty regime is operating post-Brexit. This includes a brief overview of the pre-Brexit regime, the main legislative changes since Brexit, the relationship between the old and new regimes, some recent cases and future developments in this area.1:15 History of customs and excise duties 3:31 Tariffs - what are they? Why do we have them? Who pays them? Any restrictions on them?6:45 Role of World Trade Organisation in harmonising tariffs. Role of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and customs unions.8:25 Framework of customs law pre Brexit - a customs union in which the EU negotiated FTAs and there was no need for a domestic UK customs code except in relation to remedies and enforcement.11:23 Excise duty regime pre Brexit.12:55 Pre Brexit, dualistic interpretation to legislation ie look at Act then underlying directive it sought to implement.15:13 Legislative changes to customs post Brexit principally (a) Taxation Cross-border Trade Act 2018 (TCTA) and (b) new FTAs.16:21 TCTA brings in a new customs duty known as import duty. How this operates is set out in O'Neill Wet Suits. The TCTA recognises and allows for FTAs to be agreed.20:07 3 types of FTA now (a) Continuity Agreements (b) new FTAs (c) Trade & Cooperation Agreement 2020 with EU.22:40 Status of FTAs in UK law. Interaction of article 5 TCTA and s29 European Union Future Relations Act 2020 + Lipton v BA City Flyer.29:39 Current regime for customs - FTAs but no customs unions. If there is no FTA/relief/tariff suspension (eg Developing Countries Trading Scheme) then UK global tariff applies.31:17 Practical consequences of new customs regime for all parts of UK other than Northern Ireland. Less drastic consequences for excise duties.32:44 Explanation of the rules of origin.35:20 The relationship between the new domestic customs regime and EU law. How are accrued EU law rights treated? And what of events after 31.12.20? What is the status of previous case law?  49:43 Excise duty - legislative interpretation now has a carve out like VAT (s28 Finance Act 2024) and will refer back to the old law. How are the courts going to view previous case law e.g. in relation to “holding” goods? 55:07 How do the new rules tie in with the appeal framework? Very few changes other than that the courts no longer have to apply EU principles. Changes from the previous rules are causing complications eg the interaction of appeals and remission applications. 1:01:42 New regime is made up of a very short Act and a lot of secondary legislation which allows HMRC to publish notices. This makes it difficult to see an overarching policy or find the policy that applies to a particular case.1:03:44 Discussion of some recent cases.1:06:36 What of the future? New case law will take time to build up, there are developments in the EU which will affect the UK and the carbon cross-border adjustment mechanism is to be introduced in 2027.Citations and legislationUK legislation Section 2, European Communities Act 1972Customs and Excise Management Act 1979Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979Chapter II, Finance Act 1994The Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and REDS) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3135)The Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/593)Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018Sections 52 and 56(4), The Customs (Import Duty) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018The Customs Tariff (Preferential Trade Arrangements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020Section 29, European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020Part 2, Finance (No 2) Act 2023The Finance Act 2016, Section 126 (Appointed Day), the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (Appointed Day No. 8, Transition and Saving Provisions) and the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 (Appointed Day No. 1) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1642)Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023Section 28, Finance Act 2024 EU LegislationTreaty on European Union / Maastricht TreatyTreaty on the Functioning of the European UnionCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (the Community Customs Code)Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93Council Directive 1992/12/EECCouncil Directive 2008/118/ECRegulation (EU) No 952/2013 (the Union Customs Code)Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 EU/UK agreementsThe EU-UK Withdrawal AgreementThe EU-UK Trade and Co-operation AgreementThe Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework Cases Case C-279/19 HMRC v WR (reference fromHMRC v Perfect [2019] EWCA Civ 465)Lipton & Anor v BA City Flyer Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 454, [2021] WLR 2545HMRC v Perfect (No 2) [2022] EWCA Civ 330, [2022] 1 WLR 3180Dawson’s (Wales) Ltd v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 332, [2023] 4 WLR 35Hartleb T/A Hartleb Transport v HMRC [2024] UKUT 34 (TCC)Cozy Pet Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKUT 96 (TCC)Kent Couriers Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 145 (TC)Bunting v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 431 (TC)Electric Mobility Euro Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 590 (TC)Lipton & Anor v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24, [2024] 3 WLR 474O’Neill Wetsuits Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1071 (TC) Other materials Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234WTO rules: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm1_e.htmLancaster House speech: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speechFree Trade Agreements: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-uks-trade-agreementsUK Global Tariff: https://www.gov.uk/trade-tariffand https://data.api.trade.gov.uk/v1/datasets/uk-tariff-2021-01-01/versions/v4.0.956/metadata?format=htmlEU customs reform: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/eu-customs-reform_enIntroduction of a UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism from January 2027:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/factsheet-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-cbam/factsheet-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanismTax Journal article by Joshua Stevens:https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/the-cbam-trilemma

Jeremy Woolf and Barbara Belgrano look at how Brexit affects the UK tax position and consider some of the issues which will be ongoing, at least in the near future.(3:08) Where we are today: you have to consider which period your case falls within. There are three periods to consider: (1) 2018 up to IP Completion Day being 31st December 2020 (2) 1 January 2021 - 31st December 2023 (3) 1st January 2024 onwards.The first period: up to IP Completion Day on 31st December 2020(4:42) The UK still a member of the EU but subject to the 2018 Act which purport to have retroactive effect. Article 89 of the Withdrawal Agreement (endorsed by HMRC v Perfect) make ECJ decisions relating to litigation commenced before Brexit or during the first period binding. ECJ decisions post Brexit only persuasive. See Lipton and The Umbrella Interchange.(7:04) Effect of section 2 2018 Act - saves EU-derived domestic law before IP Completion Day subject to Section 5 (supremacy) and Schedule 1 (Francovich damages).(8:56) Schedules 1 and 8 2018 Act - transitional provisions. To what extent, post Brexit, can you rely on general principles of EU law?  Allianz Global v Barclays.(12:01) Section 3 of the 2018 Act (incorporation of direct EU legislation) which is subject to Section 5 and Schedule 1.(13:06) Section 4 of the 2018 Act (the saving of rights under section 2 ECA). Wide rule important in direct tax field (eg transfer of assets code). Effect in tax law of The Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services EU Exit Regulations 2019. Effect of EU Directives and CG Fry & Son Ltd. Purposive interpretation dealt with in section 6. Harris v Environment Agency.The second period: 1st January 2021 - 31st December 2023(19:49) Section 6 of the 2018 Act (extent to which UK courts bound by ECJ judgments).  HMRC v Perfect, Lipton and The Umbrella Interchange cases.The third period: post 1st January 2024(22:18) RULA now takes effect. It is not retrospective and only covers disputes that relate to the period post January 2024.(23:53) Section 2 of RULA repeals section 4 of the 2018 Act. Section 3 of RULA abolishes the supremacy of EU law. Will therefore be very difficult to rely on EU law in the direct tax arena (even in Transfer of Assets Code) post 1st January 2024.(25:54) VAT and excise duties in a different position due to section 28 Finance Act.(27:10) Section 6 of RULA is not yet in force. Amended test as regards looking at earlier cases. VAT most likely to be affected.EU law remains very relevant up to 1st January 2024, despite Brexit. And EU law remains relevant going forward in the VAT context. After 1st January 2024 EU law may still have an impact on the construction of UK law.CitationsLegislationRetained EU Law Revocation & Reform Act 2023 ("RULA")European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the "2018 Act")Article 89 Withdrawal AgreementThe European Communities Act 1972The Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services EU Exit Regulations 2019Section 28 Finance Act 2024Transfer of Assets CodeCasesHMRC v Perfect [2022] EWCA Civ 330Lipton v BA Cityflyer Ltd [2024] UKSC 24, 3 WLR 474The Umbrella Interchange Fee Claimants v The Umbrella Interchange Fee Defendants[2024] EWCA Civ 1559 and [2023] CAT 49.Franciovich and Bonifaci v ItalyAllianz Global Investors & Or v Barclays Bank & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 353CG Fry & Son Ltd [EWCA] Civ 730 on appeal to the Supreme CourtOmagh LeasingHarris v Environment Agency [2022] EWHC 2264 (Admin) 

David Milne KC, Richard Vallat KC and Calypso Blaj discuss the implications of Hargreaves, in particular:What we can say about what is meant by "beneficial entitlement"? How is it different to "beneficial ownership"? And indeed to the trust law concept of both? Is there a different international fiscal meaning of beneficial entitlement?The panel look at where these issues may come up in practice. How definitive is the Hargreaves case? They also take a look at Altrad Services and the loss of beneficial ownership.Discussion of Hargreaves2:38 Whether interest payments made to a UK resident company fell within an exception to the obligation to withhold tax on payments of interest under ITA. This depends on whether the recipient is beneficially entitled to the income. The CA reviewed the case law (para 49ff of the judgment). It then applied the principles to the facts (para 61ff).8:10 It is important that the provisions put in place were specifically to obtain a tax advantage (which was admitted). The question was whether the tax planning worked. The recipient of the interest payments was under a contractual obligation to pay on the money it received so was it the beneficial owner therefore? The judgment gives guidance as to the domestic meaning of beneficial entitlement.11:39 What of the rival definition of "beneficially entitled", also known as the international or fiscal meaning? Should this be adopted in a withholding tax situation? Discussion of Indofood and the ECJ cases in 2019. The international, fiscal meaning has to take into account the objects and purposes of the Convention including avoiding double taxation. This differs from the domestic law requirements per Ramsay of whether the concept fits within the statutory purpose and context of the provisions.17:05 Conduit arrangements (insertion of a company) caught under either definition. However, theoretically there may be other cases where you are treated as being beneficially entitled under say the international, fiscal meaning but not under the domestic meaning.18:35 The domestic meaning should not be dependent on finding a tax avoidance motive.  Losing beneficial ownership20:00  Altrad Services/Wiseman. Turned on "ceasing to own" in s61 Capital Allowance Act. Marketed tax avoidance scheme. Application of Ramsay purposive principle. See Tax Journal article on Altrad in July 2024. Case quite an extreme example so there might be other cases which are less clear cut.28:07 NB there does not have to be someone who has beneficial ownership.Areas where beneficial ownership comes up28:47 Withholding tax on interest payments, double tax treaties (dividends and royalties), domestic group relief provisions (eg CGT, substantial shareholding exemption, SDLT).Other comments30:52 What if the conduit company in Hargreaves had actually used some/all of the money even for a short period? Or had another reason for existing other than being a conduit?31:54 What if in Altrad, the complex arrangements designed to take advantage of capital allowances had actually been subject to a contract that was rescinded?LegislationIncome Tax Act 2007 s933Capital Allowances Act s61Directive 2003/49CasesHargreaves v HMRC [2024] EWCA Civ 365Sainsburys v O''Connor [1991] EWCA Civ J0522-3Parway Estates v IRC (1958) 45 TC 135Bupa Insurance Ltd v HMRC [2014] UKUT 262 (TCC)Indofood International Finance v JP Morgan Chase Bank [2006] STC 1195WT Ramsay Ltd v IRC [1982] AC 300Altrad Services v HMRC  [2024] EWCA Civ 720Hurstwood & Rosingdale [2021] UKSC 16Wood Preservation v Prior [1969] 45 TC 112Joined cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-199/16 and C-299/16Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse [2013] EWCA 3560 (Comm)Philip Baker KC's commentary on the OECD Model Convention (2017) Tax Journal article on Altrad in July 2024

In this episode, Elizabeth Wilson KC and Ronan Magee take a look at the "unallowable purpose rule" in the loan relationship code and in particular three recent Court of Appeal cases – Kwik-Fit (in which Elizabeth Wilson KC and Ronan Magee acted), BlackRock and JTI Acquisitions (in which Elizabeth Wilson KC acted).(2:28) outline of the unallowable purpose rule. It involves a multi-layered test.(4:45) a key element is what, as a matter of fact, is the group's purpose in organising the borrowing. You decide this by looking at all the facts therefore. Discussion of this in relation to the JTI Acquisitions case, Kwik-Fit and BlackRock.(9:48) companies have been trying to narrow what the courts can consider when applying the test. The Court of Appeal has clearly shown this cannot be done.(11:52) JTI Acquisitions underlines that a company must prove its case on all the facts. It cannot be selective.(13:50) Do you need to be coming to the UK for other reasons, not just tax reasons, in order to benefit from the rule?(16:00) Syngenta: there must be proper evidence and not window dressing/assertions. What role do documents and witness evidence have in establishing facts? Importance of getting all your evidence (documentary and witness) before the tribunal.(22:45) Kwik-Fit: genuine commercial losses in one part of the group which they sought to set against profits in other parts of the group. The disallowed losses were, however, capped which shows the attribution rule in its safeguarding role.(29:01) new loan relationship code anti-avoidance provision ss445B - D.(30:47) some questions are not yet answered (eg attribution). Cases/legislation CasesKwik-Fit [2024] EWCA Civ 434Blackrock [2024] EWCA Civ 330JTI Acquisitions [2024] EWCA Civ 652Fidex [2016] EWCA Civ 385Travel Documents Service [2018] EWCA Civ 549Syngenta [2024] UKFTT 998 (TC)Gestmin [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)Kogan v Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645Euromoney [2022] UKUT 205 (TCC) Legislation ss441 and 442 Corporation Tax Act 2009s1139 Corporation Tax Act 2010ss445B - D Corporation Tax Act 2009

The October 2024 budget proposes a number of very significant changes for those who were previously considered “non-domiciled” for tax purposes, with effect from 6th April 2025.James Rivett KC and Emma Chamberlain are private client tax specialists who act for both clients and HMRC. They take a balanced look at some of the fundamental features of the proposals highlighting some of the main features, explaining what the new rules will do, what they don’t do, how they will/may work, who is affected and what one should be thinking of doing now if you are or are advising someone previously treated as a “non dom”:(2.07) Rewrite of the relevance of domicile.(2.36) The background to the proposed changes and what we can expect in the months to come, including HRMC’s technical note of 30th October 2024.(6.37) The new regime for “qualifying new residents” – part of the abolition of the remittance basis. They identify some of the potential difficulties such as the fact you cannot claim later and also the matching rules are affected.(11.45) Transitional reliefs.(26.09) Why the remittance basis is still relevant.(30.22) Changes to Inheritance Tax for both individuals (30.22) and trusts (36.18).(41.40) Transitional provisions including discussion of the relevant property regime and new exit chanrges (45.40), funding the new charges (49.55) and double tax treaties (51).(54) Should you consider leaving the UK?(57.57) Should you consider coming to the UK?Addendum: If you are foreign domiciled and deemed domiciled but leave by April 2025 only a 3 year tail applies; if you are foreign domiciled and not deemed domiciled but have been here for more than 10 years no three year tail applies if you leave by April 2025. Useful linksHMRC’s technical note of 30th October 2024:Reforming_the_taxation_of_non-UK_individuals.pdf“Trust Taxation & Estate Planning” – Chamberlain & Whitehouse (Sweet & Maxwell) 5th edition 2024LegislationActs referred toInheritance Tax Act 1984Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992Taxation (International & Other Provisions) Act 2010Taxes Management Act 1970Income Taxes Act 2007Finance Bill – 7th November 2024 – schedule 9: Finance Bill publications - Parliamentary Bills - UK ParliamentParticular clauses referred toSection 809L ITA 2007Section 809P(12) ITA 2007IHTA S49(1) taking precedence over s48(3)FA 1986 Section 102(4)CasesSehgal v HMRC [2024] UKUT 00074 Addendum:If you are foreign domiciled and deemed domiciled but leave by April 2025 only a 3 year tail applies; if you are foreign domiciled and not deemed domiciled but have been here for more than 10 years no three year tail applies if you leave by April 2025

Now the dust has settled following publication of the 30th October 2024 budget, Kevin Prosser KC and David Yates KC give their thoughts on certain aspects of the budget, looking at important changes to CGT and IHT, and against the backdrop of the GAAR (general anti-abuse rule).Kevin and David's discussion covers:Capital Gains Tax (from 2.17 minutes)new anti-forestalling provisionsunconditional contract planning and the use of overseas entitiesinvestors' relief in respect of gains on sale of shares in listed companiespilot truststhe consequences of the transfer of assets when limited liability partnerships become body corporates (s59A and s59AA TCGA)employee ownership trusts (ss236H - P of TCGA 1992)Inheritance Tax (from 25.21 minutes)employee benefit trustsPost 6 April 2026 tax planning (partnerships, reorganising share capital) now APR and BPR has been reducedactual domicile/domicile of choiceThe implications of the budget on "non doms" will be discussed by James Rivett KC and Emma Chamberlain in a separate podcast.Cases and legislation referred toWT Ramsay Ltd v IRC [1982] 2 AC 300Rysaffe v IRC [2003] EWCA Civ 356Barker v Baxendale Walker [2017] EWCA Civ 2056Finance Act 2020Finance Bill 2024Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (in particular ss 13, 28, 86)Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (in particular ss17,18, 28, 59A, 59AA, 236H - P)

Keep up to date with all things tax law related with the Pump Tax Chat, brought to you by leading UK tax set, Pump Court Tax Chambers. In our latest episode, Laura Poots and Ben Elliott discuss the latest case law developments in HMRC’s powers of assessment, for both direct and indirect tax. They cover issues of carelessness, deliberate behaviour and protective assessments. All the legislation and cases mentioned in the podcast as well as a transcription of the episode can be found on the podcast page on our website here.You can find out more about Pump Court Tax Chambers here and on the speakers here:Laura Poots / LinkedInBen Elliott / LinkedIn

Welcome to Pump Court Tax Chat, the podcast brought to you by the expert barristers at Pump Court Tax Chambers. Whether you're a business owner, tax professional, or just interested in tax law, you're in the right place!As the UK's leading tax chambers, our team of barristers dives deep into the latest tax news, key cases, and important legislative updates. From the impact of major tax changes to practical advice for navigating HMRC enquiries, Pump Court Tax Chat delivers insights to keep you informed and ahead of the curve.Join us every month for discussions with top tax barristers, covering everything from corporate tax to personal wealth tax issues. We’ll help you keep up to date with the latest developments and ideas —one episode at a time.Subscribe now to Pump Court Tax Chat on all major podcast platforms, and stay tuned for our first episode, where we explore some of the recent cases affecting tax litigation in the UK.