Diverted profits tax

Stop Press: Clause 46 of, and Schedule 5 to, the Finance Bill 2026 (as introduced) abolishes the DPT regime and replaces it with the ‘unassessed transfer pricing profits’ (UTPP) rules, with effect for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026. HMRC has added a new chapter to the International Manual containing guidance on the UTPP rules at INTM489100. The DPT legislation will still have effect in respect of accounting periods beginning on or before 31 December 2025 so there are no apportionment rules for accounting periods which straddle 31 December 2025. UTPP applies where, broadly, (i) profits that ought to have been included in a company’s tax return by virtue of the UK’s transfer pricing rules were omitted, (ii) the omission secures a reduction in UK tax without a commensurate increase in tax in another jurisdiction (the effective tax mismatch outcome), and (iii) it is reasonable to assume that the arrangements were designed to achieve that UK tax reduction (the tax design condition). The UTPP rules sit within the corporation tax framework and only apply to companies within the charge to corporation tax (unlike

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

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents