Court of Appeal shuns Upper Tribunal’s interpretation of salaried members rules
The Court of Appeal has sided with HMRC regarding the definition of “significant influence” in respect of the salaried members rules. What happened and what does this mean for members of limited liability partnerships (LLPs)?
-
Accounting for VAT if there is no cash payment
Your business has submitted repayment returns for the last two quarters and you are concerned that you might have underpaid output tax on some supplies where no money has changed hands. Are your concerns justified?
-
Treatment of distributions under review
The government has launched a consultation on modernising the tax treatment of distributions and repayments of capital by companies. The proposals could affect the distinction between dividends taxed as income and capital payments subject to CGT. What changes are being considered?
-
Tax relief on equipment you haven’t paid for (yet)
The timing of tax relief for purchases of equipment isn’t straightforward when payments are delayed or goods are purchased through hire purchase (HP) agreements. How can you use these rules to your advantage and get tax relief before you’ve paid the final invoice?
The salaried members rules treat individual members of an LLP as employees for the purposes of income tax and National Insurance where three conditions are met. The rules aim to prevent individuals from benefitting from the lower tax rates available to self-employed individuals without taking on the risks and responsibilities associated with owning a business.
In HMRC v Bluecrest Capital Management (UK) LLP, the case concerns the application of condition B, which applies where the member does not have significant influence over the affairs of the LLP. The members of the LLP (BC) in question contended that some portfolio managers did have significant influence, as they were each managing over $100m investments. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) agreed with BC that “significant influence” can mean influence over part of the LLP’s affairs. However, the Court of Appeal found that the FT and UT had erred in law. It was confirmed that in order to “fail” condition B, a member’s influence should apply to the affairs of the whole LLP and must be held via legally enforceable rights and duties of members, i.e. the LLP agreement. The appeal was allowed, the court set aside the decision of the UT and has remitted the case to the FTT for reconsideration.
Members of LLPs should review the application of the salaried members rules if they, like BC in this case, previously relied on HMRC guidance in respect of the level of influence required.
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.