Intangible fixed assets

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

Corporate intangible assets regime

The corporate intangible assets regime provides the rules for the taxation and relief of a company’s gains and losses from its intangible fixed assets (IFAs).

The regime only applies to companies within the charge to UK corporation tax. The regime does not apply to individuals or partnerships.

The corporate intangible assets rules are contained in Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009) and HMRC’s guidance on the regime can be found in its Corporate Intangibles Research and Development Manual from CIRD10000.

Intangible assets within the regime

An asset is within the scope of the corporate intangible assets rules if it meets the asset conditions and the time condition.

The asset conditions

The asset conditions are satisfied if:

  1. •

    the asset is:

    1. ◦

      an ‘intangible asset’ that is created or acquired for use on a continuing basis in the course of the company’s activities, or

    2. ◦

      goodwill (as defined for accounting purposes), and

  2. •

    the asset does not fall within an excluded category of assets

The term ‘intangible asset’ has the

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) HMRC launching a consultation on extending the Uncertain Tax Treatment regime, (3) News Analysis on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC, (4) 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, (5) new HMRC guidance on multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax reporting software, and (6) 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

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

Capital allowances and connected persons

Capital allowances and connected personsProvisions exist to ensure, generally, that assets may not be transferred between connected persons in such a way as to accelerate capital allowances by means of the annual investment allowance or first-year allowances, or in such a way as to artificially

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

Qualifying charitable donations and excess management expenses

Qualifying charitable donations and excess management expensesAll companies within the charge to corporation tax can deduct qualifying charitable donations (QCDs) from their total profits, after all other deductions have been made (other than group relief and group relief for carried-forward losses)
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

Capital allowances and connected persons

Capital allowances and connected persons

Capital allowances and connected personsProvisions exist to ensure, generally, that assets may not be transferred between connected persons in such a way as to accelerate capital allowances by means of the annual investment allowance or first-year allowances, or in such a way as to artificially

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

Qualifying charitable donations and excess management expenses

Qualifying charitable donations and excess management expenses

Qualifying charitable donations and excess management expensesAll companies within the charge to corporation tax can deduct qualifying charitable donations (QCDs) from their total profits, after all other deductions have been made (other than group relief and group relief for carried-forward losses)