This Practice Note describes the rules on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) applying to inheritance tax (IHT). The procedural aspects of the rules, including time limits, how to make a disclosure, scheme reference numbers, penalties and HMRC information powers are covered in Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—procedure. For the rules on disclosing: • avoidance of income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax (CGT) and National Insurance contributions (NICs), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—income tax, corporation tax, CGT and NICs • stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—SDLT • avoidance of VAT and other indirect taxes, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—VAT and other indirect taxes (DASVOIT) For separate (but related) rules imposing sanctions on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS), see Practice Note: Promoters of tax avoidance schemes and for information on the enabler penalties, see Practice Note: Penalties for enablers of defeated tax avoidance schemes. For the rules on disclosing cross-border tax arrangements (MDR, and previously

This Practice Note describes the rules on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) applying to stamp duty land tax (SDLT). The procedural aspects of the DOTAS rules, including time limits, how to make a disclosure, scheme reference numbers, penalties and HMRC information powers, are covered in Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—procedure. For the rules on disclosing the avoidance of: • income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax (CGT) and national insurance contributions (NICs), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—income tax, corporation tax, CGT and NICs • VAT and other indirect taxes, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—VAT and other indirect taxes (DASVOIT), and • inheritance tax (IHT), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—IHT For the separate (but related) rules imposing sanctions on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS), see Practice Note: Promoters of tax avoidance schemes. SDLT applies to land in England and Northern Ireland. The equivalent tax in Scotland is land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), and in Wales is land transaction tax (LTT).

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note describes the rules on the disclosure of arrangements for avoiding value added tax (VAT) that were implemented or promoted prior to 1 January 2018. For the rules applying after that date, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—VAT and other indirect taxes (DASVOIT). For the rules on disclosing: • avoidance of income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax (CGT) and national insurance contributions (NICs), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—income tax, corporation tax, CGT and NICs • stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—SDLT • inheritance tax (IHT) avoidance, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—IHT For the separate (but related) rules imposing sanctions on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS), see Practice Note: Promoters of tax avoidance schemes. Function of the rules The VAT disclosure rules, sometimes known as the VADR (standing for VAT avoidance disclosure regime), make it obligatory to inform

This Practice Note describes the rules on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes for VAT and other indirect taxes (DASVOIT). For the rules on disclosing the avoidance of: • income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax (CGT) and National Insurance contributions (NICs), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—income tax, corporation tax, CGT and NICs • stamp duty land tax (SDLT), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—SDLT • inheritance tax (IHT), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—IHT For the separate (but related) rules imposing sanctions on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS), see Practice Note: Promoters of tax avoidance schemes. Why does this matter? The DASVOIT rules make it obligatory to inform HMRC about certain arrangements for avoiding VAT and other indirect taxes. The rules allow HMRC to find out about tax avoidance schemes that it might otherwise not know about, or might only find out about much later. The rules also mean that HMRC can monitor how widely a known scheme is being used,

This Practice Note describes the rules on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) applying to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax (CGT) and National Insurance contributions (NICs). The procedural aspects of the DOTAS rules, including time limits, how to make a disclosure, scheme reference numbers, client lists, penalties and HMRC information powers, are covered in Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—procedure. For the rules on disclosing the avoidance of: • stamp duty land tax (SDLT), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—SDLT • VAT and other indirect taxes, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—VAT and other indirect taxes (DASVOIT), and • inheritance tax (IHT), see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—IHT For the separate (but related) rules imposing sanctions on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS), see Practice Note: Promoters of tax avoidance schemes. For the rules on disclosing cross-border tax arrangements (MDR, and previously DAC 6) and how these interact with the DOTAS rules, see Practice Notes: Disclosable cross-border tax arrangements—DAC

This Practice Note covers the procedural aspects of the rules on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) applying to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax (CGT), National Insurance contributions (NICs), stamp duty land tax (SDLT), inheritance tax, the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) and the apprenticeship levy. It covers time limits, how to make a disclosure, scheme reference numbers, HMRC information powers, client lists and penalties. The general principles of the DOTAS rules for income tax, corporation tax, CGT and NICs, including the circumstances in which they apply, the hallmarks and who has a duty to make a disclosure, are covered in Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—income tax, corporation tax, CGT and NICs. For the rules on disclosing: • stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—SDLT • avoidance of VAT and other indirect taxes, including the related procedural rules, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—VAT and other indirect taxes (DASVOIT), and • inheritance tax (IHT) avoidance, see Practice Note: Disclosure of tax avoidance

This Practice Note discusses the RBS Rights Issue Litigation, disclosure of the identity of third-party funders and the existence of After the Event (ATE) insurance. ATE insurance is insurance that covers the legal costs and expenses involved in litigation. It can be used in any type of litigation and by either a claimant or a defendant. However, in practice, ATE insurance is primarily used by claimants. In this case, the High Court set out important principles with respect to the circumstances in which the court may order disclosure of the identity of third-party funders and details of ATE insurance. The question was whether the defendants sought to invoke a case management power in aid of the proportionate, expeditious and efficient management of the proceedings, or whether they were in reality seeking disclosure with a view to enforcement or some other objective. The judge concluded that it would be inappropriate to make the order for disclosure of the ATE policy in this case, finding that the defendants’ primary objective was enforcement.

This Practice Note sets out the procedure and approach to obtaining a disclosure or inspection order regarding a non-party to family proceedings under the provisions of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), including case law examples. It also details other procedures whereby a disclosure order may be made, and the implications of a claim of public interest immunity. For practical guidance on the exchange of information between criminal and family agencies and jurisdictions, see Practice Note: The disclosure of information between family and criminal agencies and jurisdictions. Background The FPR 2010 do not contain a procedure for inspection (formerly production) appointments, as previously found in the Family Proceedings rules 1991 (FPR 1991). Under the former procedure, the respondent to the application had to attend an appointment before the court and produce documents specified in the order. By contrast, under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 21.2 there is no requirement for the respondent to attend at court to produce the documents and instead FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 21.2 makes provision for an application to be

What is a disclosure order? A disclosure order is, in general terms, an order authorising a request for information with which the recipient is obliged to comply. It is usually backed up by penal sanctions for non-compliance. Section 357 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) governs the making of disclosure orders in investigations concerned with the proceeds of crime. This section provides for the court to make a disclosure order, which itself authorises an ‘appropriate officer’ to give notice in writing (an information notice), to any person they consider holds relevant information to the investigation, requiring that person to: • answer questions, either at a time specified in the notice or at once, at a place so specified • provide information specified in the notice, by a time and in a manner so specified • produce documents, or documents of a description, specified in the notice, either at or by a time so specified or at once, and in a manner so specified Relevant information for the

Corporate analysis: In the case of Butcher and another v Pike and others [2020] EWHC 3362 (QB), the High Court determined that disclosures outside of the disclosure letter could be relevant for the purposes of warranty limitations. The Court of Appeal has now upheld this decision. Flint Bishop partner and head of commercial litigation Nick Wells and solicitor Kelly Savage, who acted for the successful claimants in the High Court and Court of Appeal, discuss the impact of this decision on corporate transactions and warranty claims arising out of such transactions.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. A new mandatory two-year disclosure pilot scheme will take place from January 2019 in the Business and Property Courts, governed by the provisions of the new CPR PD 51U. However, practitioners will need to consider the provisions of the disclosure pilot now and possibly take measures before next year when dealing with current or threatened proceedings. These FAQs cover some of the practical issues practitioners might face in the run up to the disclosure pilot scheme before January 2019. For guidance on the disclosure pilot scheme, see: Disclosure pilot scheme—overview. Will the disclosure pilot scheme apply to proceedings that are currently ongoing/were commenced before January 2019? Yes—the disclosure pilot scheme will apply to existing proceedings. This means that should your current case be subject to the disclosure pilot scheme, the new rules will apply from 1 January 2019. The disclosure pilot scheme will not affect a disclosure order made before the start date of the disclosure pilot scheme,

This Practice Note is part of the Lexis+® UK Corporate Private equity buyout transaction collection. The disclosure process involves the preparation of separate disclosure letters by the seller and by the target’s managers, which will be finalised and signed at exchange. The disclosure letters serve a separate purpose to due diligence, even though both involve providing information concerning the target to the private equity investor and ultimate buyer. It allows the seller and managers to qualify their respective warranties set out in the warranties schedule of the formal documents and thereby limit potential liability under them. If, following a buyer's claim for breach of warranty under the share purchase agreement, a matter can be shown to have been disclosed to the buyer (meeting the standard of disclosure described in the formal documents), the buyer's warranty claim will not succeed. By contrast, the warranties in an investment agreement, which are typically given by target management, are used primarily to focus the attention of the managers on disclosure of key information to the investor,