Entity classification

It is necessary to characterise overseas entities as with transparent or opaque for UK tax purposes, as this will determine how they (and their members and potentially other persons connected with them) are taxed.

UK case law and HMRC interpretation

UK legislation provides little guidance on whether an overseas entity is to be treated as transparent or opaque for UK tax purposes. However, there have been a number of key cases that have considered the treatment of specific overseas entities. In response to this case law, HMRC has published guidance on the factors to be considered when classifying a foreign entity for UK tax purposes. HMRC has also published a non-definitive list of entities which it considers to be either opaque or transparent.

For an explanation of the relevant case law and HMRC’s views on entity classification, see:

•
Practice Note: Entity classification case law and HMRC's interpretation—which explains the circumstances in which overseas entities are classified as either transparent or opaque for UK tax purposes by reference to the applicable case law (eg Dreyfus, Ryall

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

FTT dismisses appeal finding that taxpayer was ‘receiving or entitled’ to income (Smart v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Smart v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against assessments and a closure notice charging income tax on distributions paid by entities forming part of a multinational group in one part of which the taxpayer was a partner in an LLP. The FTT held that he was the person ‘receiving or entitled’ to the income and rejected his alternative argument that it should act on the basis that a court would have ordered rescission of various documents under which the income was paid.

FTT refuses HMRC permission to appeal against case management decisions requiring explanation of £96m PAYE determinations (BGC Services Holdings LLP v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In BGC Services Holdings LLP v HMRC, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) refused HMRC permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against two case management decisions (i) refusing HMRC’s request for further and better particulars from the taxpayer, and (ii) requiring HMRC to particularise in its statement of case how salaried members rules conditions were met for which partners, how the determinations of over £96m were calculated, and the basis for alleging deliberate or careless behaviour on the part of the taxpayer. HMRC now has the right to appeal directly to the UT for permission to appeal the decisions.

UT holds that taxpayers did not have a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage (Osmond and Allen v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Osmond and Allen v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the taxpayers’ appeal that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) erred in law in concluding that, given the taxpayers’ stated purpose of entering into share buybacks in order to secure enterprise investment scheme (EIS) disposal relief, it necessarily followed that they had a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage (within the meaning of section 687 of the Income Tax Act 2007).

FTT finds VAT assessment was not made within statutory time limit (Conservatory Insulations Northwest Ltd v HMRC)

In Conservatory Insulations Northwest Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) refused HMRC’s application to strike out the taxpayer’s appeal, and allowed that appeal. The appeal concerned a question of fact: whether a VAT assessment had been issued to the appellant within the statutory time limit, and the FTT agreed with the appellant that it had not been made in time.