The Joint Regulatory Oversight Committee (JROC) has published its recommendations for the Open Banking future entity, covering the journey to the future entity, as well as recommendations around the immediate creation of an interim entity, which will exist in an interim regulatory phase, before the full transition to the future entity occurs, along with the implementation of the regulatory framework. Responses are sought by 20 May 2024.

The adoption of a joint share ownership plan (JSOP) need be no different from any other share plan save that if new shares are to be issued, the issuance of the share interest will occur immediately rather than, as with an option, at a later date. The shares will also be owned jointly by the employee and a third party. Why establish a JSOP? While JSOP awards provide a benefit similar to that of a market value share option to holders, when structured and implemented correctly, any gain realised under a JSOP award should be subject to capital gains tax rather than income tax and National Insurance contributions. For further commercial advantages of JSOPs, see Practice Note: Introduction to JSOPs—Commercial rationale. Who is the joint owner? The employee beneficially owns shares jointly with a third party (as, in effect, ‘tenants in common’). Shares are typically owned jointly by an employee or director and a third party, either an investor in the company or, more commonly, the trustees of an employee benefit trust (EBT) or,

Basic structure of a JSOP The basic structure of joint ownership involves two owners, namely the employee participant who owns the growth interest, and the co-owner, holding the balance of the interest in the shares. Typically, the co-owner is the trustee of an employee benefit trust (EBT) established by the company, either specifically to facilitate the jointly owned share structure or established as a general employee share ownership trust. In this practice note, it is assumed that the co-owner will be the trustee of an EBT. For more general information on joint share ownership plans (JSOPs), see Practice Note: Introduction to JSOPs. Funding the acquisition of the jointly owned shares The EBT trustee will usually be funded by the company. There are various approaches to funding, each with different consequences and considerations. Contribution The first and in some ways simplest approach would be for the company to make a contribution by way of gift to the EBT. This is the simplest in that there is no requirement for loan

Summary of the tax treatment of the acquisition of an interest in a jointly owned share Absent the specific statutory rules relating to employment related securities considered below, an award of an interest in jointly owned shares offered to an individual as part of their overall remuneration package would be taxed as normal remuneration. However, the interest acquired by an employee is an ‘interest in an employment-related security’. In addition, the amount of tax is likely to be affected by the impact of the specific rules in Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) relating to restricted securities. Typically, therefore, to avoid any future income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) charges arising upon the lifting or variation of such restrictions, the employer and employee will enter into a joint election under ITEPA 2003, s 431. This Practice Note examines each of these taxation points in further detail below. For more general information on joint share ownership plans (JSOPs) and awards, see Practice Note: Introduction to JSOPs. Employment-related securities The interest acquired

The European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) has published a draft report on the European Commission’s proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Directive 2013/34/EU (the EU Accounting Directive) as regards the time limits for the adoption of sustainability reporting standards for certain sectors and for certain third-country undertakings.

JUSTICE, together with King’s College London, has published a report comparing the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) with the Post Office and Infected Blood compensation schemes, calling for funded legal advice and an independent expert appeals body for Windrush claimants. The report concludes that the WCS is at least as complex as the other schemes, but is the only one without funded legal advice and lacks comparable access to expert evidence and a binding independent appeals process.

The law reform charity JUSTICE, has published a report by its EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Working Group into the operation of the EUSS and some of the ongoing problems which it continues to suffer from such as issues with the ‘proof of status’ portal, poor communication between departments and with individuals, and risks to particularly vulnerable people.

JUSTICE has published a report on the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS), focusing on how legal representation supports claimants. Led by Dr Jo Wilding supported by Dechert LLP and a working group of legal professionals, the report explores how the absence of funded legal advice may be limiting access to compensation for individuals affected by the Windrush scandal. Report findings highlights the complexity of the scheme and the challenges faced by claimants, many of whom are older or in vulnerable circumstances. The report sets out a series of findings and recommendations intended to inform future policy and improve the scheme’s accessibility and fairness.

See Joint venture (JV).

See Joint venture agreement (JVA).

See Joint venture company (JVC).

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions