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:

  1. provide for the immediate cancellation of a business’ gross payment status

  2. make a business liable for lost tax, and

  3. 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.

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 FA 2003, s 75A 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