Property funds (PAIFs and REITs)

Property funds come in different guises. In each case, their primary purpose is to facilitate collective investment in real estate. Investment in real property is popular and often seen as lower risk than investing on the equity markets.

As with other fund-types, collective investment in real estate (as opposed to independent investment) offers many advantages. These include:

•
the ability to share investment risk—funds can 'afford' to take greater investment risk because risk is spread more widely and, as a result, they can (potentially) access higher rewards
•
access to a larger and more diverse portfolio of property assets that an individual investor would otherwise not be able to afford, and
•
professional investment management

Collective investment in real property has been widely encouraged. Developments in the UK's tax regime to ensure that tax does not hinder or dissuade collective investment in property funds have been rapid over the last few years. Central to the UK's regime has been the development of:

•
the real estate investment trust (REIT), and
•
the property authorised investment fund (PAIF)

REITs v PAIFs

There is a good deal

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

Tax weekly highlights—25 September 2025

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) new HMRC guidance for labour supply chains involving umbrella companies, (2) updated NICs guidance on internationally mobile employees, (3) a technical note on Reserved Investor Funds, and (4) News Analyses on the UT’s decisions in Pawar and Circleplane.

UT strikes out taxpayer’s appeal concerning recusal of the FTT judge (Circleplane Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Circleplane Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) struck out an appeal against a decision of a judge of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) not to recuse herself from hearing the appellant’s appeal. It also rejected an application for its decision to be anonymised.

FTT rules that not receiving a letter can constitute a reasonable excuse (MBP Europe Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In MBP Europe Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed the appellant’s appeal against a penalty, imposed by HMRC under Schedule 26 of the Finance Act 2021 (FA 2021), for the late payment of VAT. This was on the basis that the appellant demonstrated that it had not received a letter informing it that it was being moved to the payments on account regime.

UT follows Medpro when applying Martland three-stage test, but still refuses late appeal application (Tajinder Pawar v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Tajinder Pawar v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) decision refusing permission for a late appeal against a Personal Liability Notice (PLN), as it found that the FTT had erred in its weighting of the need to respect time limits when applying the third-stage balancing exercise test set out in Martland. On remaking the decision, it dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.