This Practice Note summarises the law in relation to taxi licensing. In particular, it considers licensing requirements for ‘hackney carriages’ and ‘private hire vehicles’ (PHVs) which are generally hired as a whole, ie not at separate fares for each passenger. This Practice Note does not consider vehicles that are hired at separate fares. Licensing authority The licensing authority for both hackney carriages and PHVs is the district council, or in areas where there is no district council, a metropolitan council, unitary authority and in Wales a county council or county borough council. Hackney carriage licensing was extended throughout England and Wales (outside of London) by section 15 of the Transport Act 1985 (TA 1985), and section 76 of the Public Health Act 1925 (PHA 1925) extended hackney carriage licensing to railway land. PHVs may only be licensed following adoption of Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (LG(MP)A 1976) in an area where hackney carriage licensing already applied under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (TPCA 1847). Local authorities would be well advised

Local Government analysis: In the myriad of litigation involving the ride-hailing app Uber, what started out as a case about worker statu, resulted in litigation about the legislative interpretation[1] of licensing Acts[2] in relation to contractual relationships. This resulted in potential VAT implications for the private hire industry and travelling public alike, triggering a VAT consultation by HMRC[3]. Expressing no view as to whether the Divisional Court was right or wrong in Uber v TFL[4] on the same point in relation to the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals by DELTA and Veezu. Thus discharging the declaration made by Mr Justice Foster in the High Court that required operators to contract as principal with passengers for the provision of a booked journey under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (LG(MP)A 1976). Written by David Wilson, licensing consultant at A2Z Licensing.

Local Government analysis: In the myriad of litigation involving the ride-hailing app Uber, what started out as a case about worker status resulted in litigation about the legislative interpretation of licensing Acts in relation to contractual relationships with potential VAT implications for the private hire industry and travelling public alike, triggering a VAT consultation by HMRC. Expressing no view as to whether the Divisional Court was right or wrong in Uber v TFL when it decided the same point in relation to the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals by DELTA and Veezu, discharging the declaration made by Mr Justice Foster in the High Court that required operators to contract as principal with passengers for the provision of a booked journey under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (LG(MP)A 1976). Written by David Wilson, Licensing Consultant at A2Z Licensing.

Local Government analysis: The Divisional Court held that London operators that accept bookings as the agent of drivers are acting unlawfully. It also granted leave to United Trade Action Group Ltd (UTAG) to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to the plying for hire by app question, in respect of which the court regarded itself as bound by the decision in Reading Borough Council v Ali. While questions about VAT and the employment status of drivers arising from the operator principal principle might be the bigger socio-economic questions, the implications for regulators and those they regulate should not be overlooked or understated. Although not addressed by the court, the licensing question is—is an operator, who contractually purports to be a driver’s agent, unfit to be licensed, because they do not accept the booking as principal, when the court has held they must in order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (PHV(L)A 1998)? Written by David Wilson, licensing consultant at A2Z Licensing.

This Practice Note covers several topics relating to potential offences committed when a taxi or private hire vehicle ‘touts’ or solicits for business. These are: • terminology • offence under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA 1994) • statutory defences • prosecution and sentencing • reforms in the law Terminology The term ‘Private Hire Vehicle’ (PHV) covers a range of vehicles including minicabs, executive cars, chauffeur services, limousines and some school and day centre transport services. All PHV journeys must be pre-booked via a licensed PHV operator and are subject to a ‘triple licensing lock’, ie the operator fulfilling the booking must use vehicles and drivers licensed by the same authority as that which granted its licence. ‘Taxis’ on the other hand, such as licensed black cabs or hackney carriages, can be hired immediately by hailing on the street or at a rank. Because they do not have to be booked by an operator, they fall outside the triple licensing lock. Instead, a taxi licence itself is subject to a different licensing regime. Offences

Taxing power refers to the legal authority of a state or public body to impose, assess and collect taxes. In UK and Irish legal practice it is a descriptive term, rather than a single defined statutory concept, and is derived from constitutional and legislative frameworks that confer power to raise revenue.In England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Parliament at Westminster holds primary taxing power, exercised through Finance Acts and other tax legislation, with certain devolved taxing powers granted to the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. In Ireland, taxing power is vested in the Oireachtas under the Constitution, implemented through annual Finance Acts and other tax statutes.The concept is central to public law, constitutional law and tax law, informing challenges to the validity of taxes, the limits of delegated legislation, and disputes over the scope of devolved or local authority fiscal powers. Taxing power is also relevant when advising on state aid, double taxation agreements, fiscal sovereignty, and the interpretation of taxing statutes, including the principle that taxes must be clearly authorised by legislation. Usage is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland.

Tax analysis: In Herrmann v HMRC, the First-Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against late payment penalties and surcharges, following a reallocation of previous tax payments. There was no basis in legislation for revisiting the penalty position, despite the taxpayer having the benefit of reduced interest charges.

Private Client analysis: In Methanex, the Privy Council considered two main issues. First, were dividends paid by Methanex Trinidad to its sole shareholder in Barbados ‘artificial or fictitious’? The tax authority argued that the dividends were artificial and fictitious because subsequent dividends were paid up the corporate chain to the ultimate parent in Canada. Overturning the lower courts, the Privy Council held that the dividends were neither artificial (abnormal) nor fictitious (a sham), as the dividends were the only legal means to distribute profits up the corporate chain, and it was commercially commonplace for national and international groups to distribute profits precisely as was done in this case. The second issue was whether the Barbados shareholder, an International Business Company (IBC), was ‘liable to tax’ in Barbados and therefore properly resident in Barbados for purposes of the CARICOM Tax Treaty. The tax authority argued that the Barbados shareholder was not ‘liable to tax’ in Barbados for various reasons revolving mainly around the company’s status as an IBC, which afforded it a lower rate of tax. The Privy Council held that the Barbados shareholder was ‘liable to tax’ because, as a resident of Barbados, it was liable to pay tax on its worldwide income in Barbados. The fact that Barbados chose to impose a preferential tax rate was irrelevant. Written by David Wilson, partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP (Montreal, Canada).

Law360: British taxpayers could be on the hook for the cleanup if oil leaks from a ship operating without full insurance as a result of sanctions imposed on Russia, a senior figure at Lloyd's of London warned a panel of MPs on 14 May 2024.

Tax analysis: In McCann Media Ltd (MML) v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the company’s appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) that the IR35 employment intermediaries legislation applied to arrangements between the company and Sky TV.

DEVELOPMENT: On 18 November 2025, the OECD Council approved changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital. The changes are: • new guidance on how cross-border ‘home office’ arrangements are treated under tax treaties, providing certainty for employers and employees • a new alternative tax treaty provision to ensure that income from activities connected with natural resources extraction is taxed where it occurs, reinforcing source-country rights and supporting resource-endowed developing economies, and • additional refinements to enhance consistency in treaty interpretation and strengthen tax certainty The changes will be reflected in revised condensed and full editions of the OECD Model Tax Convention to be released in 2026. This Practice Note displays the status of the 15 action points of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, including any relevant UK developments. BEPS refers to tax planning strategies used by multinational enterprises that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations

This tax tracker displays the status of US FATCA intergovernmental agreements (IGA) and UK FATCA IGAs The tracker is split into three parts: • US FATCA—IGAs in force • US FATCA—IGAs signed, or agreed in substance, but not yet in force, and • UK CDOT—automatic exchange of information agreements between the UK and Crown dependencies and overseas territories US FATCA—IGAs in force Below is a list of IGAs between the US and another country that are currently in force. Note that the date that the IGA came into force is not necessarily the date that the other country is treated as having an IGA in effect as a matter of US law. For more information, see Practice Note: US: Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)—summary — What is an intergovernmental agreement?. The list is based on information provided by the US Treasury Department. The information was last accessed on 11 February 2025. Country IGA and related documents Status Date country is treated as having an IGA in effect Algeria US-Algeria IGA (Model 1) In force since