The following Tax practice note Produced in partnership with Pete Miller Miller Partnership for Tolley's Tax Digest and Karen Cooper of Cooper Cavendish LLP provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
The huge volume of legislation that comprises Part 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) (the disguised remuneration rules) was introduced by Finance Act 2011 (FA 2011), although parts of the legislation were effective from the date of publication of the first draft rules, on 9 December 2010 (notably covering loans made by third parties on or after that date). The legislation had long been trailed by HMRC as a counter to what they perceived as abusive tax planning relating, in particular, to certain uses of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) and employer-financed retirement benefit schemes (EFRBSs) which sought to provide pension benefits in excess of the annual and lifetime limits.
The rules have been regularly amended since their introduction in 2011. Following its 2015 Autumn Statement announcement, the government confirmed at Budget 2016 that a further package of measures was to be introduced to tackle the ongoing use of disguised remuneration avoidance schemes. Following a technical consultation which closed on 5 October 2016, the measures, which were included in Finance Act 2017, Finance (No 2) Act 2017 and Finance Act 2018, aim to ensure that those who have used disguised remuneration schemes or are intending to do so in the future are required to pay 'their fair share of tax'.
Key to understanding any legislation, particularly a complex set of
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Tipping off and prejudicing an investigationIt would undermine the benefit to the authorities if, a suspicious activity report (SAR) having been made, the alleged offender were to be made aware of the interest in their activities so that they could take steps to cover up their misdeeds or disappear.
There are two kinds of burden:•the legal burden, and•the evidential burdenThe legal burdenA party has the legal (sometimes called ‘the persuasive’) burden where the onus is on that party to prove a fact or issue in a case to the required standard of proof.The legal burden is generally on the
What is a third party debt order (TPDO)?Third party debt orders were previously known as 'garnishee' orders and operated under the regime provided for in CCR Ord 30 and RSC Ord 49 (now revoked). Although the rules in CPR 72 are new, many of the principles with which they are concerned are well
Produced with input from Rebecca Cousin of Slaughter and May on market practice.This Practice Note summarises the rules and guidance in relation to parties who are, or may be presumed to be, acting in concert for the purposes of The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code). In particular the
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.