Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: At Budget 2025, the government announced that it will legislate in Finance Bill 2026 (also known as Finance (No 2) Bill 2024–26) to introduce measures targeting promoters or enablers of marketed tax avoidance. The measures are contained in Part 6 of the Bill (as introduced on 4 December 2025) and include:

  1. updates to the DOTAS and DASVOIT civil penalty regime so that HMRC may directly issue DOTAS penalties instead of seeking tribunal approval

  2. a general prohibition on promoting marketed arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success and a prohibition on promoting arrangements specified in universal stop regulations (USRs). A breach of either prohibition would attract a range of sanctions which would include publication, financial penalties and criminal prosecution

  3. promoter action notices (PAN). A PAN would require businesses to stop providing goods or services to promoters of tax avoidance where those goods or services are used in the promotion of avoidance and the promoter is in breach of a USR or stop notice. PANs will primarily be issued to financial institutions, insurance companies, and social media

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents