Joint ventures and tax

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

A joint venture (JV) is a commercial arrangement entered into by two or more independent parties (referred to throughout as joint venture parties) in order to do something specific, eg to develop and market a new product, where the two (or more) parties can achieve their aim better together than separately, eg one has the research and development expertise and the other has the manufacturing expertise.

There are no specific laws, including tax laws, applicable to joint ventures and there is no technical legal meaning of the term.

The parties have a choice whether to establish their joint venture as:

  1. •

    a contractual joint venture

  2. •

    a joint venture partnership, or

  3. •

    a joint venture company

The tax issues that arise in establishing, operating and terminating such a joint venture will have an impact on the choice between these types of vehicles, for which see Practice Note: Tax influences on choice of joint venture vehicle. Commercial issues will also be very important, for which see: Joint ventures for construction lawyers—overview.

This topic is concerned only with joint ventures formed between corporate entities

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

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Tax weekly highlights—19 March 2026

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) the enactment of Finance Act 2026 on 18 March 2026, (2) News Analysis on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC, (3) News Analysis on the UT’s decision in Putney Power Limited on the issue of whether the appellants had begun to trade by the relevant date for EIS relief purposes, (4) new HMRC guidance on multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax reporting software, and (5) News Analysis on the FTT’s decision in Countrywide Partners Limited to uphold a penalty for failure to comply with a stop notice issued under the promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS) rules.

Upper Tribunal denies EIS relief as trade not commenced (Putney Power and Piston Heating v HMRC)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) has held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT) made a material error of law in its approach to determining when a trade has ‘begun to be carried on’ by a company for the purposes of qualifying for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief under section 179(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The FTT had identified a set of principles by reference to factors which were of relevance in previous cases and applied those ‘legal’ principles to determine that neither Putney Power Limited (‘Putney’) nor Piston Hearing Services Ltd (‘Piston’) had begun to carry on a trade by the relevant date of 4 April 2018. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis that the FTT had sought to apply a principles-based test which did not exist as a matter of law. The proper approach requires a multi-factorial evaluation of all of the circumstances in the case at hand. The UT re-made the decision but ultimately reached the same conclusion as the FTT, dismissing the appeals of both Putney and Piston and holding that neither company had commenced trading by the relevant date. The decision is significant because it clarifies that there is no strict legal test for when a trade commences: the question remains highly fact sensitive and will be determined by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Written by Kate Ison (partner at Macfarlanes LLP) and Victoria Braid (associate at macfarlanes LLP).

FTT upholds £1m penalty for stop notice breach (Countrywide Partners Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Countrywide Partners Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) upheld HMRC’s £1m penalty on the taxpayer for breach of a stop notice under section 236A of the Finance Act 2014 (FA 2014), holding that the appellant continued to promote the arrangements by organising and managing them (including issuing payslips and making payments) for existing users.

Court of Appeal upholds UT decision disallowing amortisation debits (Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ appeals against the Upper Tribunal (UT)’s decision that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC.

View Tax by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Taxation of limited partnerships

Taxation of limited partnershipsThis Practice Note considers specific tax provisions relevant only to a limited partnership formed under English law (as opposed to a general partnership, a limited liability partnership (LLP) or a limited partnership formed under Scottish law).Like a general

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance taxWhile interest often accrues on overdue tax, the late payment of certain taxes may also attract a penalty. For information on the interest accruing on overdue tax, see Practice Notes: IHT—payment deadlines on death—Interest on IHT and Interest on late paid
Taxation of limited partnerships

Taxation of limited partnerships

Taxation of limited partnershipsThis Practice Note considers specific tax provisions relevant only to a limited partnership formed under English law (as opposed to a general partnership, a limited liability partnership (LLP) or a limited partnership formed under Scottish law).Like a general

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance taxWhile interest often accrues on overdue tax, the late payment of certain taxes may also attract a penalty. For information on the interest accruing on overdue tax, see Practice Notes: IHT—payment deadlines on death—Interest on IHT and Interest on late paid