Tax update

A round-up of recent issues

13 March 2018

1. General 2 1.1 HMRC’s refusal of LDF benefits to EBT applicants not an abuse of power 2 1.2 EC publishes report on ‘aggressive tax planning’ indicators 2 1.3 Proposals on intermediaries who promote aggressive cross-border tax schemes 3 1.4 First two unexplained wealth orders issued 3 2. Private client 3 2.1 HMRC publishes warning to owners of offshore assets 3 2.2 FTT finds reasonable excuse for late filed return 3 2.3 HMRC discovery assessment vacated following a COP9 investigation 4 2.4 FTT finds trading losses allowable deduction against general income 4 3. Trust, estates and IHT 5 3.1 Trust registration service (TRS) penalties announced 5 4. PAYE and employment 5 4.1 SAYE savings holiday 5 5. Business tax 6 5.1 Consultation into first time buyer relief for Land & Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) 6 5.2 New guidance on treatment of leases for LBTT made available 6 5.3 HMRC succeeds over contrived restrictive covenants payments in a DOTAS scheme 6 5.4 ATED valuation – a reminder 7 6. VAT 7 6.1 Further judgment on ‘white goods’ input tax claims 7 6.2 AG opines that sale of credits to participate in online penny auctions is taxable 7 6.3 MTD for VAT regulations 8 6.4 MTD for VAT – Smith & Williamson briefing note 8 6.5 FTT rules on partial exemption special method 9 7. And finally 9

13/03/2018 1

1. General 1.1 HMRC’s refusal of LDF benefits to EBT applicants not an abuse of power The CA has held that HMRC’s refusal to grant the full benefit of the Liechtenstein disclosure facility (LDF) to the taxpayers, who had all operated EBTs, was not an abuse of power. The taxpayers had all operated employee benefit trusts (EBTs) and had applied for registration under the LDF. At the time of their applications, HMRC was in the process of reviewing the use of the LDF for EBT purposes, and this potential policy change was notified to the relevant tax advisers before the applications were made. On receipt of the applications, HMRC put them on hold and did not register them for the LDF. Some months later, HMRC confirmed that, while taxpayers registered to use the LDF could continue to settle under the favourable terms of the LDF, those who had applied but had not yet been registered could no longer access the full favourable terms it offered. The taxpayers claimed that this was such conspicuous unfairness as to amount to an abuse of HMRC’s powers, as it had already accepted applications from taxpayers in similar tax positions. The HC dismissed the claim for judicial review as covered in our 1 February 2016 Update. The CA has now rejected the taxpayer’s appeal of that decision, and agreed with the HC that there was no conspicuous unfairness. It did however note that: ‘it is regrettable that HMRC took no steps to explain to BDO that the claimants' applications for registration would not be processed in the usual way while the review of the LDF was still in progress. It would also have been better if there had been a formal public announcement of the commencement of the review on 31 July 2013, rather than the relatively informal notification given to BDO and other agents.’ City Shoes (Wholesale) Limited v HMRC [2018] EWCA Civ 315 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/315.html

1.2 EC publishes report on ‘aggressive tax planning’ indicators The report notes that the aim of the study is to provide economic evidence of the relevance of so- called aggressive tax planning (ATP) structures for all EU Member States, relying on various indicators. While there is some data limitation, the study provides a broad picture of which Member States appear to be exposed to ATP structures, and how this impacts on their tax base (erosion or increase). Findings included:

• profitability of the corporate sector is found to be particularly low in , Croatia, Slovenia and the . This was noted as a potential indicator of an erosion of the tax base owing to ATP; • both inward and outward foreign direct investment stocks are several times higher than GDP in Cyprus, , Luxembourg, Malta and the . It was noted that extraordinarily high values could indicate that substantial ATP activities take place; • large market shares of large corporations suggest that some Member States like or the UK are more vulnerable to ATP because of high concentration among the corporate tax payers; • the extraordinarily high share of foreign-controlled firms in Estonia and Luxembourg might possibly reflect some tax-driven behaviour; • the high share of gross operating surplus in foreign controlled firms in Ireland, Hungary, Luxembourg and Romania can also be consistent with a high profitability of the corporate sector in these countries, which could in turn indicate ATP; • Ireland stands out as the Member State with the highest net royalty payments as a percentage of GDP, which is consistent with a potential ATP channel using royalty payment; • strategic transfer pricing strategies could affect the tax base in: Germany, France, , UK, the Netherlands and .

13/03/2018 2

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/taxation_papers_71_atp_.pdf

1.3 Proposals on intermediaries who promote aggressive cross-border tax schemes MEPs have voted by 541 to 33 votes to back a proposal that would mean service providers who design or promote such plans, would have to provide details of their schemes in a central directory. The disclosed information would then be made automatically available to national tax authorities in all member states. www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180226IPR98618/meps-back-crackdown-on-aggressive- cross-border-tax-schemes

1.4 First two unexplained wealth orders issued The National Crime Agency (NCA) has secured two unexplained wealth orders, to investigate assets totalling £22 million. As covered in our Update of 6 February 2018, the unexplained wealth order (UWO) provisions came into effect from 31 January 2018. These provisions can require persons who are suspected of being involved in serious crime to explain the source of their wealth to HMRC or other UK enforcement agencies. The orders relate to two properties, one in London and one in the South East of England. www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/1297-nca-secures-first-unexplained-wealth-orders

2. Private client 2.1 HMRC publishes warning to owners of offshore assets HMRC has issued a press release titled: ‘HMRC warns offshore tax dodgers.’ It is essentially a reminder to taxpayers to disclose undeclared tax liabilities relating to offshore assets by 30 September 2018. The note appears somewhat misleading as it just refers to offshore assets, rather than the income, capital gains and inheritance tax liabilities arising from such assets. Further, it refers to those ‘that seek to evade paying tax’. While the new Requirement To Correct (RTC) legislation does indeed cover evasion, it also covers other behaviours including wholly innocent error. Finance (No.2) Act 2017 introduced the RTC legislation. It requires those with undeclared UK tax liabilities that involve offshore matters or transfers, relating to IT, CGT or IHT for the relevant periods, to disclose those to HMRC on or before 30 September 2018. www.gov.uk/government/news/hmrc-warns-offshore-tax-dodgers

2.2 FTT finds reasonable excuse for late filed return The FTT has cancelled penalties issued to a taxpayer for the late filing of his tax return on the basis that he had a reasonable excuse. He had behaved in an exemplary manner in his dealings with HMRC and there was nothing to indicate that he had received the notice to file the return. The taxpayer left the UK in February 2010 and submitted a P85 to HMRC advising he would be leaving for 18 months. Later in 2010, the taxpayer and his wife let out their UK home for a short period. The taxpayer notified HMRC of the change before receiving any rent and completed an application to register as a non- resident landlord. His share of the income for 2010/11 was £1,901, within his personal allowance and no tax was due. HMRC stated that it issued a notice to file a 2010/11 tax return on 6 April 2011, although the taxpayer maintained he did not receive this. He subsequently filed the return in May 2013, once he had returned to the UK and had become aware that it was due. HMRC issued late filing penalties totalling £1,600, a number not far short of the total income arising. The 2011/12 tax return was submitted on time, reporting the rental income for the year.

13/03/2018 3

HMRC had separately accepted in identical circumstances that his wife had a reasonable excuse for late filing. The FTT stated that ‘the web-site guidance is at best unclear in places and caused puzzlement to the Tribunal with its conflicting, vague, and inconsistent advice’ and ‘the tribunal considers that HMRC have wasted everyone’s time in bringing a case which has very little merit on their side and where the taxpayer seems to have acted in an exemplary manner. Nothing would have been gained by the issue and completion of the return, no tax was at stake, and another HMRC department had already realised that the appellant’s wife, who was in very similar circumstances, should not be penalised.’ http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j10315/TC06357.pdf

2.3 HMRC discovery assessment vacated following a COP9 investigation HMRC carried out a Code of Practice 9 (suspicion of fraud) (COP 9) investigation and assessed a taxpayer on a substantial shortfall of taxed income. HMRC was unable to identify the sources of the missing income and treated it as arising as miscellaneous income. The FTT found that HMRC had failed to identify the source of the income and, in the absence of a source, any such income was not taxable. The FTT therefore vacated the assessments and penalties. HMRC’s COP 9 investigation calculated that the taxpayer had a shortfall in declared income for the tax years 2005/06 to 2007/08 of over £250,000. On an HMRC review, the amounts in question were reduced only by £50,000. The judge, Richard Thomas, analysed the schedular system and the concept of ‘source’ for income tax purposes. HMRC had not been able to identify an income source for the missing income and had allocated the amounts to ‘other income’ under Income (Tax Trading and other Income) Act 2005 s.687. It was the case, however, that this charge to income tax still required a source and HMRC admitted it could not be identified. Since the income had no source, it was not liable to income tax. The Court did note that this did not represent ‘a clean bill of health’ for the taxpayer, but did not explore the point further. Ashraf v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 97 (TC) http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j10313/TC06355.pdf

2.4 FTT finds trading losses allowable deduction against general income The FTT has found that the taxpayer was carrying on his trade on a commercial basis with a view to the realisation of profits. The losses arising in 2010/11 and 2011/12 could, accordingly, be set against his general income. The taxpayer acquired a villa in Tuscany that was a former monastery, with the intention to operate it as a ‘hospitality at home’ business. It was run down and dilapidated and significant restoration work was undertaken. The villa received its first guests in August 2010 although the restoration was not completed until 2012. Losses totalling almost £360,000 were claimed against the taxpayer’s general income in 2010/11 and 2011/12 and HMRC disallowed these losses. Although HMRC accepted that the business activities did amount to a trade, it claimed that the trade was not commercial. HMRC’s arguments included that:

• the main reason for the purchase was the vision to restore the villa it to its former glory; • it had a domestic use as a home for the taxpayer and his son; • it was part of an exit strategy from his medical practice; • there was no business plan; • the prices sought were below the commercial rate; and • there was a lack of business records. The FTT disagreed, finding that these arguments were not supported by the evidence. In addition, the villa being the taxpayer’s or his son’s home did not prelude the trade from being carried on on a commercial basis with a view to the realisation of profits.

13/03/2018 4

The FTT found that the evidence pointed to the taxpayer carrying on his ‘hospitality at home’ trade in accordance with ordinary prudent business principles, but that he was somewhat ‘blown off course’ by adverse economic circumstances. Beacon v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 104 (TC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2018/TC06362.html

3. Trust, estates and IHT 3.1 Trust registration service (TRS) penalties announced HMRC has now announced the penalty regime that will apply to late filing on the TRS. This will be a mixture of fixed penalties and tax-geared penalties, depending on the period of delay. The tax-geared penalties will apply where the registration is more than 6 months late. HMRC has confirmed to the CIOT that the 5% penalty will be calculated based on the total of any tax paid by the trust in the relevant year, which may include IHT, SDLT, LBTT and SDRT as well as IT and CGT. HMRC also states that: ‘HMRC will not automatically charge penalties for late TRS returns. Instead we will take a pragmatic and risk based approach to charging penalties, particularly where it is clear that trustees or their agents have made every reasonable effort to meet their obligations under the regulations. We will also take into account that this is the first year in which trustees and agents have had to meet the registration obligations.’ The announcement detailing penalties was made on 5 March, the same day as the deadline for registering on the TRS without penalties applying. While HMRC has confirmed its view on what taxes the tax-geared penalty will apply to, these taxes are not in fact directly attributable to the TRS itself. These details do not yet appear on HMRC’s website but the announcement, which we also received directly, can be found below. www.tax.org.uk/policy-technical/technical-news/trust-registration-service-%E2%80%93-penalty-update

4. PAYE and employment 4.1 SAYE savings holiday The Government has announced that it is delaying implementation of the extended Save As You Earn (SAYE) savings holiday that was due to take effect from 6 April 2018. Autumn Statement 2017 announced an extension to the SAYE savings holiday for employees on qualifying parental leave from 6 months to 12 months. This was due to take effect from 6 April 2018. After receiving representations from the share plans industry, the government is delaying implementation of the extended SAYE savings holiday. This is to provide plan providers and administrators with time to make and test system changes. The Government has also announced that the SAYE savings holiday will now be extended to 12 months for all SAYE plans, not just those with qualifying parental leave. This change will take effect on 1 September 2018. HMRC will update the SAYE prospectus and guidance in the Employee Tax Advantaged Share Scheme User Manual to reflect these changes. www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-related-securities-bulletin/employment-related- securities-bulletin-no-26-march-2018

13/03/2018 5

5. Business tax 5.1 Consultation into first time buyer relief for Land & Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) The Scottish Government has announced a consultation on the detailed rules for its intended LBTT first time buyers’ relief, which it intends to operate on properties worth up to £175,000,with effect from June this year. It was announced in the Scottish Budget in December that the Scottish Government intended to follow suit, after the recent introduction of a first time buyers relief in relation to SDLT in England & Wales in November, by introducing a first time buyers’ relief for LBTT, the Scottish equivalent of SDLT. The Scottish Government invites responses by 23 March 2018. https://consult.gov.scot/fiscal-responsibility/first-time-buyers-relief/

5.2 New guidance on treatment of leases for LBTT made available Revenue Scotland has released new guidance on its website regarding the treatment of leases for LBTT. The new guidance includes frequently asked questions, revised guidance and worked examples. It also comes as a timely reminder that, unlike for SDLT, tenants of leased property in Scotland must submit an LBTT return every three years, whether or not there is any further LBTT to pay and irrespective of any changes (or not) of the relevant lease in that three year period. This is an important difference from the SDLT regime, which applied in Scotland until 31 March 2015, where mandatory regular lease reporting does not occur. These rules only apply to leases granted under the LBTT regime so, for example, the first three year reporting requirement deadline will be on 1 April 2018 for leases granted on 1 April 2015. www.revenue.scot/land-buildings-transaction-tax/leases

5.3 HMRC succeeds over contrived restrictive covenants payments in a DOTAS scheme In a series of related cases, substantial payments were made for employee restrictive covenants by partnerships and LLPs. These claimed deductions for these payments. HMRC succeeded in demonstrating that, in reality, the payments were not in respect of restrictive covenants and accordingly there was no prospect of success in proving that they were deductible. The DOTAS scheme worked as follows. The partnership or LLP carried on a very low level trade, that the Court was prepared to accept could be a genuine trade. It would employ an offshore administrative employee who agreed to enter into restrictive covenants for inflated sums. The firm sought to claim a deduction in respect of the restrictive covenant payment. The nub of the scheme was that such payments were automatically tax deductible without reference to the question as to whether or not they were wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. In addition, the amounts paid for the restrictive covenants themselves were treated as earnings for employment law and therefore taxable on the employee, though in these cases because the employee was offshore, no charge to UK income tax would arise. The taxpayer’s argument was that the deduction for making these payments was automatic and therefore the relevant issue was whether or not the payment was in respect of the covenant. Furthermore, the employment tax rules were clearly designed widely in order to tax such payments. The Court was not prepared, however, to accept that in the real world, in the light of modern statutory interpretation following the UBS and Deutsche Bank decisions (UBS v HMRC; DB Group Services v HMRC [2016] UKSC 13) that it would be likely that a court would find these payments were in respect of such covenants and therefore no deduction would be likely to be available. The First De Sales Ltd Partnership & Ors v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 106 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2018/TC06365.html

13/03/2018 6

5.4 ATED valuation – a reminder Those who will be within the charge to ATED for the ATED year 2018/19 should be aware that a new property valuation will apply for the ATED year beginning 1 April 2018. It will be the valuation of the property as at 1 April 2017 or later acquisition. The valuation date may also be relevant for those previously outside ATED due to the property value on 1 April 2012 or later acquisition being beneath £500,000, but where the revaluation at 1 April 2017 taking the property over that threshold for the first time. Those already within the ATED charge, where the property is likely to remain within the same ownership and remain within the ATED charge, should consider obtaining an updated property valuation as at 1 April 2017. The previous valuation date was 1 April 2012, or value at acquisition if later. It will be advisable for those non-natural persons with UK residential property that was below the ATED threshold (currently £500,000) based on the earlier valuation, to reassess the valuation as at 1 April 2017 to see if that threshold is now breached. Where an ATED relief is available, a relief declaration return will need to be filed to claim that relief before 30 April 2018.

6. VAT 6.1 Further judgment on ‘white goods’ input tax claims Following its previous decision, where it had upheld that the VAT Builder’s Block was lawful, the UT has now ruled on the claim details and rejected most of the taxpayer’s claim. The original case concerned the VAT ‘Builder’s Block’ whereby developers cannot recover as input tax VAT incurred on items not ordinarily incorporated by builders in residential developments. The UT has now looked at the outcome of four issues that had remained to be resolved between the taxpayer and HMRC. The UT held that the blocking order applied to most of the items but allowed the taxpayer’s appeal in relation to cooking extractor hoods. Taylor Wimpey PLC v HMRC [2018] UKUT 55 (TCC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2018/55.html

6.2 AG opines that sale of credits to participate in online penny auctions is taxable The Advocate General (AG) of the CJEU looked into the VAT liability of the issue of ‘credits’ for online auctions where Member States involved had taken contradictory views. The UK-based taxpayer (Madbid) operated an online shopping business selling mainly technology-related products and provided an online platform where customers could bid for, and win, goods. The website also operated in a number of other countries. In simplified terms, customers could buy so-called credits to place bids in the online auctions. The credits could not be used to purchase goods directly from the online shop or converted back into cash, and expired after 180 days. The penny auction started with an opening price of zero and the winner of the auction was the current highest bidder when the auction time was up. The winner was entitled, but not obliged, to buy the goods won for the amount of the winning bid, plus the shipping and handling charge. The value of the credits used by the auction winner to bid in the auction was not credited towards the price paid for the goods won but was extinguished. HMRC decided that the amount paid for the issue of credits was consideration for a supply of services; namely, the grant of a right to take part in the online auctions, and that the place of supply of that service was in the UK where the supplier is established. The German tax authorities, however, took another view; that the issue of credits was not subject to VAT and that the purchase price for any goods purchased included the value of the credits spent by that user in acquiring those goods. The place of supply of these goods was in Germany. This resulted in double

13/03/2018 7

taxation and the taxpayer appealed in the UK. The complexities of the case led to the referral to the CJEU. The AG essentially agreed with HMRC and found that the issue of credits must be regarded as a supply of services for consideration. The amount of credits cannot be regarded as a prepayment for the goods where a customer wins the auction. The AG addressed the double taxation by stating that the courts of the affected member states may refer the matter to the CJEU. AJ opinion: Case C-544/16 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=200021&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&m ode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=12780

6.3 MTD for VAT regulations The Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2018 No 261 have been laid before Parliament and passed with no amendment. Most of the comments made by the CIOT and other professional bodies have been ignored at this point, although we understand that some of the points raised may be taken account of in the expected notice or directions in due course. There is no mention of the penalty-free period or ‘soft landing’ proposed by HMRC for the first year where data is transferred manually between systems to enable adjustments or collation of data to be made. This will therefore provide an unsatisfactory period of uncertainty for businesses as they could be non- compliant but not penalised if certain elements of the software they use do not speak to each other. Amended regulation 6 appears to now permit a person who is no longer required to submit a VAT return, for example if they have deregistered, to stop maintaining their ongoing records ‘functional compatible software’. Amended regulation 7 provides that for specific cases HMRC can vary the rules that determine what information is to be kept and maintained for each transaction. This can only be done where HMRC is satisfied that the regulations are likely to be impossible, impractical or unduly onerous. While the ability of the administration, as opposed to Parliament, to change the law is often frowned upon, in this case it does mean that HMRC can react swiftly to circumstances as MTD unfolds. This has to be welcome. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/261/contents/made www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668753/Addendum_to_VAT_No tice_on_Making_Tax_Digital_for_VAT.pdf

6.4 MTD for VAT – Smith & Williamson briefing note Making Tax Digital (MTD) will fundamentally change the administration of the UK tax system. As well as improving HMRC’s own internal systems, MTD will involve mandatory digital record keeping and reporting to HMRC. It is to be gradually rolled out by type of tax, with VAT first, coming in for VAT periods commencing after 1 April 2019. HMRC has set out in draft guidance and in new regulations how this will work in practice. More details are expected soon in a formal VAT notice. Smith & Williamson’s MTD for VAT briefing note includes more information on this area for clients. MTD for VAT will affect most entities that are already required to be VAT registered for VAT. Our briefing note covers:

• what is MTD? ; • what will MTD for VAT involve?; • what software can businesses use?; • permissible combinations of software, including what data transfers must be electronic and when from; and • how we can assist clients.

13/03/2018 8

If you are interested in discussing how MTD for VAT might affect you and your business, or participating in the pilot once launched, please contact your Smith and Williamson adviser who can put you in touch with one of our VAT specialists. http://smithandwilliamson.com/-/media/saw/files/pdfs/briefing-notes/making-tax-digital-for- vat.pdf?la=en

6.5 FTT rules on partial exemption special method The FTT has found that the proposed partial exemption special method (PESM) was fair and reasonable. As HMRC had accepted this was the case for a prior period, there was no basis to conclude that VAT grouping with a non-trading business could render the method not fair and reasonable. Dynamic People Ltd provided domiciliary care to patients in their own homes (an exempt activity) but was also a registered provider of training to third parties. The company submitted a PESM after its existing method was rejected by HRMC. Dynamic People sought to recover costs incurred on two units, one used to provide training to third parties and the other for general business use. A combined method was submitted that consisted of floor space allocation to wholly taxable supplies for the property costs and a turnover basis for general business overheads. HMRC argued this was not a fair and reasonable method as it could not be reliably audited to determine the actual use of individual rooms. The FTT rejected this notion, stating that the method was very similar to that which HMRC had already agreed, which HMRC also agreed was not in error. It was not clear why, if the method was fair, the formation of a VAT group with non-trading entities alter this. The submitted method, which allowed recovery of approximately 20%, was deemed to be more fair and reasonable than the standard method, which would only allow 1%. The appeal was therefore allowed. Dynamic People Limited v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 87 (TC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2018/TC06345.html

7. And finally Tax Adviser, Pat With the rapid digitalisation of tax, we tax advisers are getting used to prognostications that, over the next few years, swathes of us will be looking for new jobs. What are we all going to do? Well, with a bit of luck, our lives will be spent driving round country villages in red vans with our pet cats delivering letters and… completing tax returns. Yes; a whole new field of activity could be opened up of a dual service of post and tax. It wouldn’t be just Postman Pat’s Greendale; who wouldn’t fancy the Ambridge round, with those farming partnerships, or the unincorporated sports societies in Dingley Dell? How about that milling sole trade in Camberwick Green? Sounds absurd? Hardly; we only have to look across the Channel to see that it is not. Not only is it not fantasy, it is about to happen. The Daily Telegraph has recently reported that ‘French postmen will be asked to help citizens fill out their tax forms from next month. It is the latest scheme developed by the state-owned post office to broaden its services and generate revenue.’ It will be fascinating to see how Monsieur le Facteur Patrique gets on. Perhaps, though, the joke is on us; the French clearly have a tax system that postal staff can help with. Do we? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/02/french-postmen-fill-recipients-tax-forms-profit-boosting-drive/

13/03/2018 9

Glossary

Organisations Courts Taxes etc CIOT – Chartered Institute ICAEW - The Institute of Chartered CA – Court of Appeal ATED – Annual Tax on NIC – National Insurance of Taxation Accountants in England and Wales Enveloped Dwellings Contribution EU – European Union ICAS - The Institute of Chartered CJEU - Court of Justice of CGT – Capital Gains Tax PAYE – Pay As You Earn Accountants of Scotland the European Union EC – European Commission OECD - Organisation for Economic FTT – First-tier Tribunal CT – Corporation Tax R&D – Research & Co-operation and Development Development HMRC – HM Revenue & OTS – Office of Tax Simplification HC – High Court IHT – Inheritance Tax SDLT – Stamp Duty Land Customs Tax HMT – HM Treasury SC – Supreme Court IT – Income Tax VAT – Value Added Tax UT – Upper Tribunal smithandwilliamson.com Offices: London, Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cheltenham, Dublin (City and Sandyford), Glasgow, Guildford, , Salisbury and Southampton. Smith & Williamson LLP: Regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for a range of investment business activities. A member of Nexia International. The word partner is used to refer to a member of Smith & Williamson LLP.

Smith & Williamson is a member of Nexia International, a worldwide network of independent accounting and consulting firms.

We have taken care to ensure the accuracy of this publication, which is based on material in the public domain at the time of issue. However, the publication is written in general terms for information purposes only and in no way constitutes specific advice. You are strongly recommended to seek specific advice before taking any action in relation to the matters referred to in this publication. No responsibility can be taken for any errors contained in the publication or for any loss arising from action taken or refrained from on the basis of this publication or its contents. © Smith & Williamson Holdings Limited 2018.