2020–21—Budget and Finance Bill

ARCHIVED: This Overview has been archived and is not maintained.

This subtopic draws together content on the fiscal events throughout the tax year 2020-21 starting with the publication of draft provisions for Finance Bill 2020-21 on 21 July 2020 to the passage through parliament of Finance Act 2021 (FA 2021). For more information on the annual Budget and Finance Bill process, see Practice Note: The Budget and Finance Bill process.

All the analysis produced in this topic will be collected in Practice Note: 2020–21—Budget and Finance Bill—Tax analysis [Archived].

Finance Act 2021

Finance Bill 2021 (FB 2021) (officially known as the Finance (No 2) Bill, because it is the second Finance Bill of the 2019–21 Parliamentary session, and also known as Finance Bill 2020-21) was published on 11 March 2021. FB 2021 received Royal Assent on 10 June 2021 and became the Finance Act 2021 (FA 2021).

For an overview of the FB 2021 provisions, see News Analysis: Publication of Finance Bill 2021.

For information on the Finance Act 2021, detailing its progress through Parliament to Royal

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Tax News

FTT denies cross-border group relief claim on main purpose grounds (Lloyds Asset Leasing v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Lloyds Asset Leasing, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against HMRC’s disallowance of its cross-border group relief claim. The FTT found that the qualifying loss and precedence conditions in sections 119 and 121 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010) were satisfied in respect of the claim, however the relief was denied under CTA 2010, s 127 as the FTT found that it would not have arisen but for arrangements that had a main purpose of securing that relief.

Court of Appeal holds that sale of loan assets from insolvent trusts was void as an improper exercise of a fiduciary power (FS Capital Ltd v Adams)

Private client analysis: The Court of Appeal held that the sale of loan assets from three insolvent Jersey trusts was void due to the improper exercise of a fiduciary power by the trustees. The judgment emphasises the importance of evidencing specific aspects of transactions to prove a bona fide purchaser defence and supports the view that the improper exercise of a fiduciary power is void in English law. It clarifies that the liability of a retiring trustee for their successor's breaches is based on the retiring trustee’s contemplation of its successor’s breach, and not the reason for the retirement This decision has significant implications for trustee duties, improper transactions, and third-party liability, affecting both Jersey and potentially English law trusts. Practical implications written by James Fennemore of XXIV Old Buildings.

Tax weekly highlights—6 February 2025

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) News Analysis of the Court of Appeal’s decision in ScottishPower that consumer redress payments in settlement of regulatory investigations were deductible for corporation tax purposes, (2) News Analysis of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bluecrest on the scope of the salaried members rules, and (3) News Analysis of the High Court decision in Ashley on subject access rights under UK GDPR in the context of a tax enquiry.

High Court considers subject access rights under UK GDPR in context of tax enquiry (Ashley v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Ashley v HMRC, the High Court considered a claim that HMRC had breached the subject access rights of the claimant under UK GDPR after they sought access by way of a subject access request (SAR) to personal data processed by HMRC in connection with an enquiry into a tax return conducted by the Wealthy and Mid-Size Business Compliance (WMBC) department. The High Court ultimately concluded that HMRC would need to reconsider its response to the SAR and anticipated that further data would need to be disclosed.