HMRC has published guidance on its views on the recent changes to the tax rules in relation to company windings up.

The Finance Act 2016 introduced a new Targeted Anti-Avoidance Rule (TAAR) to prevent “phoenixism” – broadly where solvent companies are liquidated so that shareholders dispose of their shares to realise a Capital Gains Tax charge rather than paying income tax on the profits that would otherwise be distributed.

The new rules will broadly apply where:

The Court of Appeal, in the case of Grant & Another v Baker & Another [2016] EWCH 1782 (Ch), has held that a judge had been wrong to postpone an order for possession and sale of a matrimonial home indefinitely due to the postponement being incompatible with the underlying purpose of bankruptcy legislation.

Background

On 28 March 2017, the Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2017[3] was made which, amongst other things, enacts ESC3.20. The Order came into force on 6 April 2017.

ESC3.20 disapplied the clawback of input tax credit for an insolvent business that has not paid (or not fully paid) the consideration for a supply. New section 26AA of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 gives broadly the same effect as ESC3.20 in that it “turns off” the disallowance of input tax in cases of non-payment of consideration if:

This case raised the issue of when a company in financial distress (or the directors of that company) should issue a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator (“NOITA”) which affords a moratorium under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”).

Facts

This case concerned the rejection by the liquidators of Saff One LLP (‘LLP’) of a proof of debt lodged by ESS. The issue was whether a tax mitigation structure involving a loan to LLP for purported investment in the Ultra Green Scheme gave rise to a provable debt if the monies ‘loaned’ passed in a circle and no such investment was made.

Original news

Mikki v Duncan [2016] EWCA Civ 1312, [2017] All ER (D) 157 (Feb)

On 11 October 2016, the High Court10 held that statutory interest payable on an insolvency (under rule 2.88(7) IR 1986) is not “yearly interest” for UK tax purposes. Such statutory interest is therefore not subject to UK withholding tax (20%).

The facts of the case are somewhat unusual in that there was a substantial surplus in the administration and the statutory interest was estimated at £5bn. However the decision is a welcome clarification of the position. It also confirms HMRC’s previous guidance on the taxation of statutory interest (subsequently withdrawn).

Welcome to the latest edition of DLA Piper’s monthly newsletter – Pensions Round-Up – in which we provide an overview of developments in pension legislation, case law and regulatory guidance. In this edition we look at key developments from October 2016 including the following. ■ The Pensions Regulator: the publication of reports which look at cases concerning the power to declare scheme amendments void, failures to complete the scheme return, and the potential use of the Regulator’s anti-avoidance powers.

In Lomas and others v HMRC [2016] EWHC 2492 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that statutory interest payable on insolvency is not 'yearly interest' for UK tax purposes. The administrators therefore had no obligation to account for income tax on the interest payments made. The Court was also critical of HMRC's contradictory guidance on this issue.

Background

Long service changes