Environmental taxes

What is an environmental tax or levy?

A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services and transactions.

To levy can mean to impose a tax on an individual or a business or to impose a penalty.

HM Treasury has defined an environmental tax as one which meets the following three principles:

  1. the tax is explicitly linked to the government's environmental objectives

  2. the primary objective of the tax is to encourage environmentally positive behaviour change, and

  3. the tax is structured in relation to environmental objectives—for example, the more polluting the behaviour, the greater the tax levied

Fuel duty, vehicle excise duty and air passenger duty are not classed as environmental taxes.

Types of environmental tax

Landfill tax

Landfill tax is a tax payable on disposals of waste at licensed landfill sites and on certain prescribed landfill activities.

The objective of the tax is to encourage efforts to minimise the amount of waste produced and encourage the use of non-landfill waste management options, such as recycling, composting

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

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).

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents