Intangible fixed assets

Intangible fixed assets regime (IFA regime)

The IFA regime, contained in Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, was introduced in 2002 for the purposes of taxing companies in respect of their intangible fixed assets, which are broadly intellectual property (IP) and goodwill.

For more details, see Practice Notes: What is an intangible fixed asset? and Excluded intangible fixed assets.

The IFA regime aims to tax and relieve profits and losses in respect of intangible assets as income, generally in accordance with accounting principles.

The IFA regime provides more opportunities for corporation tax relief than was previously the case. For more details, see Practice Note: How intangible fixed assets are taxed—basic principles and Intangible fixed assets—anti-avoidance.

Tax treatment of intangible assets outside the IFA regime

Before the introduction of the IFA regime, companies were subject to corporation tax in respect of intangible assets on the basis of general tax principles (largely enshrined in case law) that still apply for individuals. Broadly, outside of the IFA regime, acquisitions and disposals of IP (other than patents) held otherwise than as trading stock are

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

Court of Appeal confirms that loans made under remuneration trust arrangements were taxable as disguised remuneration and related payments were not deductible (Marlborough DP Limited v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Marlborough DP Ltd, the Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT), confirming that loans made to a director under a remuneration trust (RT) scheme were taxable under the disguised remuneration legislation in Part 7A of the Income Tax Earnings and Pensions Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) as being ‘in connection with’ employment. The court also agreed that the related payments were not deductible for corporation tax purposes, as they were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the company’s trade.

UT holds that VAT exemption did not apply for single composite supply of financial services (JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In JPMorgan Chase Bank NA the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the company’s appeal and upheld the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that the supply of intra-group services was a single composite taxable supply and the VAT exemption for financial services did not apply.

Supreme Court rules that the hire cap under the oil contractor regime applied to restrict deductions (HMRC v Dolphin Drilling Ltd)

Tax analysis: In Dolphin Drilling, the Supreme Court dismissed the company’s appeal, deciding that the ‘hire cap’ under the oil contractor regime applied to restrict the corporation tax deduction available to it for the cost of chartering a tender support vessel (TSV).

Tax weekly highlights—26 June 2025

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) the Supreme Court’s decision in HMRC v Dolphin Drilling, (2) confirmation that the PISCES stamp tax exemption Regulations are to come into force on 3 July 2025 and (3) News Analyses on previously reported decisions Osmond and Allen v HMRC (on main purpose under ITA 2007, s 687), Smart v HMRC (on ‘receiving or entitled’ to income), Conservatory Insulations Northwest Ltd v HMRC (on VAT assessment time limits) and BGC Services Holdings LLP v HMRC (on the refusal of HMRC’s case management decisions permission to appeal application).