Diverted profits tax

Forthcoming change: In June 2023, HMRC launched a consultation on the ‘Reform of UK law in relation to transfer pricing, permanent establishment and Diverted Profits Tax (DPT)’. A summary of responses was published on 16 January 2024. For more information about the consultation, see News Analysis: TAMD 2023—consultation on reform of diverted profits tax.

On 28 April 2025, the government opened a consultation on draft legislation containing measures to replace DPT as a standalone tax with a new charging provision within corporation tax for ‘unassessed transfer pricing profits’ (UTPP), whilst maintaining the assessment framework from the DPT regime, including preliminary notices and charging notices. The 6% differential tax rate between corporation tax and DPT will maintained. Unlike the current DPT charge, UTPP will not apply to non-UK resident companies that avoid a UK taxable presence (section 86 Finance Act 2015). The new ETMO condition is similar, but much simpler, than the current provision. The insufficient economic substance condition is replaced by a tax design condition. The UTPP charge will be based on transfer pricing principles and, as such, the government considers that ‘this approach

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

Upper Tribunal rules on application of purpose tests in the context of Transactions in Securities regime (Osmond and Allen v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Osmond and Allen v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the taxpayers’ appeal, holding that they did not necessarily have a main purpose of obtaining ‘an income tax advantage’ under the Transactions in Securities (TIS) regime simply by virtue of having a main purpose of obtaining the benefit of Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) disposal relief. Obtaining EIS relief from capital gains tax created an ‘income tax advantage’ for the purposes of section 687 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found as a matter of fact that the taxpayers did not have the subjective purpose of obtaining this income tax advantage. Surprisingly, however, the FTT held that because they had a main purpose of obtaining the EIS benefit (notably, a capital gains tax), it followed that they had a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage. Concluding that the FTT had erred as a matter of law, the UT held that the taxpayers’ desire to crystallise their EIS disposal relief did not mean that they necessarily had a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage. Written by Susanna Breslin, barrister at 11 New Square.

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).