Basic principles

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

Who pays corporation tax?

Corporation tax is payable by 'companies', which includes any body corporate and unincorporated associations.

A company that is tax resident in the UK is generally subject to UK corporation tax on its worldwide profits. A company that is not tax resident in the UK may still be subject to UK corporation tax in certain circumstances, including:

  1. •

    (for disposals of UK land on or after 5 July 2016) in respect of profits from a trade of dealing in or developing UK land (for more information, see Practice Note: Transactions in UK land—tax rules)

  2. •

    if it carries on a trade (other than a trade of dealing in or developing UK land) in the UK through a permanent establishment (PE), in which case it is subject to UK corporation tax in respect of the profits attributable to its UK PE (for more information, see Practice Notes: What is a UK permanent establishment? and How is a UK permanent establishment taxed?)

  3. •

    if it disposes (directly or indirectly—this includes a sale of shares in a property rich company) of UK land on or after

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

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

When would preference shares fall under the shares as debt rules and hence the dividend payments would

When would preference shares fall under the shares as debt rules and hence the dividend payments would fall to be taxed as debt as opposed to qualifying for the corporation tax exemption for dividend payments?The ‘shares as debt’ rules applied to shares held by companies up until 21 April 2009 (for

Is there any guidance as to the appropriateness of defining ‘Control’ as either (a) in accordance with

Is there any guidance as to the appropriateness of defining ‘Control’ as either (a) in accordance with section 1124 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, or as (b) the beneficial ownership of more than 50% of the issued share capital of a company or the legal power to direct or cause the direction of the

Distribution key concepts—repayment of capital

Distribution key concepts—repayment of capitalAlongside the concept of new consideration, which is further explained in Distribution key concepts—new consideration, the concept of repayment of capital is vital in determining whether certain transactions are distributions.At the broadest level the
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

When would preference shares fall under the shares as debt rules and hence the dividend payments would

When would preference shares fall under the shares as debt rules and hence the dividend payments would

When would preference shares fall under the shares as debt rules and hence the dividend payments would fall to be taxed as debt as opposed to qualifying for the corporation tax exemption for dividend payments?The ‘shares as debt’ rules applied to shares held by companies up until 21 April 2009 (for

Is there any guidance as to the appropriateness of defining ‘Control’ as either (a) in accordance with

Is there any guidance as to the appropriateness of defining ‘Control’ as either (a) in accordance with

Is there any guidance as to the appropriateness of defining ‘Control’ as either (a) in accordance with section 1124 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, or as (b) the beneficial ownership of more than 50% of the issued share capital of a company or the legal power to direct or cause the direction of the

Distribution key concepts—repayment of capital

Distribution key concepts—repayment of capital

Distribution key concepts—repayment of capitalAlongside the concept of new consideration, which is further explained in Distribution key concepts—new consideration, the concept of repayment of capital is vital in determining whether certain transactions are distributions.At the broadest level the