Multinational top-up tax

STOP PRESS relating to new MTT and DTT draft legislation: Section 50 of, and Schedule 8 to, the Finance Act 2026 amends various aspects of the MTT and DTT provisions. Among the changes, the draft legislation incorporates the OECD’s Administrative Guidance (January 2025) on limiting the extent to which pre-entry deferred tax assets and liabilities, arising from tax benefits granted by governments, can be taken into account in determining a group member’s effective tax rate. The latter will be treated as coming into force for accounting periods ending on or after 21 July 2025. The other measures will mostly take effect for accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2025, though some provisions may be permitted to take effect from an earlier date at the election of affected taxpayers. For more information, see: News Analysis: Budget 2025—Tax analysis—International.

STOP PRESS relating to new HMRC manual on MTT and DTT: On 5 August 2025, HMRC published a new manual on MTT and DTT. The manual is based on previous tranches of draft guidance released for consultation in September 2024

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