Construction industry scheme

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: At Budget 2025, the government announced that it will legislate in Finance Bill 2026 (also known as Finance (No 2) Bill 2024–26) for the introduction of new powers for HMRC to tackle fraud by businesses operating within the CIS. Modelled on the VAT measures that restrict input tax recovery where the supplier knew or should have known that the supply was connected to the fraudulent evasion of VAT, the new CIS measures will:

•
provide for the immediate cancellation of a business’ gross payment status
•
make a business liable for lost tax, and
•
allow a penalty of 30% of the lost tax to be imposed on the business, its directors, and other connected persons

where it can be shown that the business knew or should have known that it entered into a transaction connected with the fraudulent evasion of tax. Further, the waiting period to reapply for gross payment status that has been immediately removed will be increased from one year to five years.

The government has also announced that it will introduce regulations to simplify the CIS

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

Budget 2025—The oil and gas price mechanism: a replacement for the energy profits levy

Tax analysis: At Budget 2025, the government announced that when it expires, the energy profits levy (EPL) will be replaced by the oil and gas price mechanism (OGPM) as a longer-term strategy for the UK tax system to respond to oil and gas price shocks. Jake Landman, Partner and Head of Tax Disputes and Investigations at Pinsent Masons, analyses the government’s plans and considers their practical consequences.

Finance Bill 2026—Share exchanges and reorganisations: anti-avoidance

Tax analysis: Following the decisions in Delinian Ltd (formerly Euromoney Institutional Investor plc) v HMRC and Wilkinson v HMRC legislation is being introduced, effective from Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025, to allow HMRC to dissect a transaction into its constituent parts to counteract avoidance. This is facilitated by a number of changes to sections 137 and 138 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992). Philip Ridgway, barrister, Temple Tax Chambers and member of the LexisNexis Tax Consulting Editorial Board, considers the background to the legislation and scope of the new provisions.

Court of Appeal confirms SDLT anti-avoidance provisions trump connected companies market value rule exception (The Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In The Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal held that the distribution-related exception from the SDLT connected companies market value rule, found at section 54(4) of Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003), applied to prevent the market value rule in FA 2003, s 53 from operating on the land transaction in question. However, HMRC succeeded in its alternative argument under the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions contained at FA 2003, s 75A. The Court found that the scheme in question gave rise to a higher SDLT charge on the notional transaction than on the actual steps implemented, meaning FA 2003, s 75A was engaged and the imposition of a market value SDLT charge was ultimately upheld. The taxpayer’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

Tax weekly highlights—11 December 2025

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) News Analysis on the new measures contained in Finance Bill 2026 (FB 2026) to tackle the promotion of marketed tax avoidance schemes, (2) News Analysis on publication of the Final Report of the independent review of the Loan Charge and the government’s response to that Report, (3) News Analysis on the FB 2026 measure that provides an SDRT relief for new UK listings, (4) News Analysis on the FTT’s refusal to allow amortisation deductions for goodwill created by a predecessor partnership in County Insurance Services Ltd v HMRC, and (5) News Analysis on the FTT’s finding that mixed-use SDLT rates applied to the acquisition of an apartment with a basement storage unit in Sehgal v HMRC.