Tax

Case reference Tax head  Legislation  Case stated requested  Matter under consideration    30TACD2025 Capital gains tax   Section 544 TCA 1997 Section 545 TCA 1997 Section 552 TCA 1997 Section 554 TCA 1997 Section 555 TCA 1997 Section 557 TCA 1997 Section 560 TCA 1997 Section 561 TCA 1997  No   The Appellant in this case was a partner in a partnership which had acquired land in 2009. The partnership built and developed a property at a total cost of €23,023,400 which included integrated plant and machinery at a cost of €5,506,195. The plant and machinery qualified in full for capital allowances and the Appellant claimed his proportionate share of the available capital allowances on his income tax returns. Over the period of ownership of the asset, there had been a part disposal and further capital additions leaving a base cost of €19,642,020. The partnership subsequently sold the property to a third party for €20 million; there was no apportionment of the sale price specified in the contract between land and plant and machinery. The property was used solely for the purposes of a trade or profession for the entire period of ownership. The Appellant completed a capital gains tax (CGT) return based on a disposal of a single asset being the land which included the buildings thereon and fixtures therein. The Appellant contended that the qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery was part of the acquisition cost and is an allowable deduction for the purposes of section 552(1). Revenue issued one CG50 clearance for the sale of the land and buildings including the integrated plant and machinery. Revenue submitted that the single asset sold consisted of two distinct elements from a tax perspective. One element was the plant and buildings which had qualified for capital allowances over the period of ownership and the second element being land which had not attracted capital allowances. Revenue stated that as the asset sold comprised of two different types of assets for tax purposes, separate CGT computations were required, and an apportionment was required under section 544 TCA to calculate the capital gain. Revenue argued that the loss accruing on the plant and machinery could not be factored in to reduce the capital gain. It was on this basis that Revenue had issued a notice of amended assessment. The Appellant submitted that when land is sold to a purchaser which necessarily includes all buildings and fixtures and fittings that are integrated into the building, they are an integral part of the building. The Appellant argued that he was therefore entitled to deduct qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery in the CGT calculation. The Appeals Commission held that the method adopted by Revenue was not provided for in Statute and therefore was incorrect.   39TACD2025 Corporation tax   Section 884 TCA 1997 Section 917 TCA 1997 Section 949 TCA 1997 Section 959 TCA 1997 Section 1077 TCA 1997 Section 1084 TCA 1997  No   The Appellant filed corporation tax returns (Form CT1) for the accounting periods 2021 and 2022 by June 2022 and April 2023 respectively and Notices of Assessment were issued by Revenue. The Appellant’s agent encountered IT filing acceptance issues when filing the iXBRL accounts and unknowingly the accounts did not file properly. In 2024, Revenue issued revised Notices of Assessments in respect of both years to include a surcharge for late submission of returns. This was on the basis that iXBRL accounts were not filed by the specified date. The Appellant only became aware on receipt of the revised Notice of Assessments that iXBRL accounts had not been filed. Revenue has issued tax clearance certificates for all years 2021 to 2024 prior to the issue of amended assessments. The Appellant argued that the non-filing of electronic accounts was not intended or deliberate, there was no loss to Revenue and that all taxes were paid on time. Once becoming aware of the issue, there was no unreasonable delay in remedying the matter and accounts were filed within a few days. Revenue stated the Appellant did not provide correspondence at the time of filing the iXBRL accounts for the accounting periods 2021 or 2022 of the technical difficulties encountered. The Appeals Commission held that Revenue correctly applied a surcharge under section 1084(2)(a)(ii) for failing to deliver a return on or before the specified return date. The Appeals Commission held that Revenue correctly applied a surcharge under section 1084(2)(a)(ii) for failing to deliver a return on or before the specified return date.

This edition’s Chartered Accountants Tax Case digest looks at a case in which the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) and restored the previous decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in finding that the taxpayer was not UK tax resident during the tax year having spent a number of days in the UK due to exceptional circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from leaving. The focus of the case was on the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the UK Statutory Residence Test (SRT) with the Court noting in its decision that this needs to be applied to individual circumstance as a whole whilst also highlighting that such circumstances can include the reaction of a taxpayer to matters such as the illness of a close relative, and other moral obligations. Commentators are arguing that this decision essentially appears to loosen the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. At present it is unclear whether HMRC will appeal to the Supreme Court. The UK’s SRT is used to assess if an individual taxpayer is UK tax resident and took effect from 6 April 2013. This case is the first and only case to date in which the SRT has been the subject of an appeal through the UK court system. Background The case was an appeal by the taxpayer against the UT decision which held that the taxpayer was UK tax resident for the tax year ended 5 April 2016. During 2015/16, the appellant taxpayer had received a large dividend but did not include it on her self-assessment return on the basis that it was not taxable in the UK because she was not UK tax resident in that tax year as she was tax resident in Ireland. The concept of ‘days’ spent in the UK lies at the heart of the SRT. Ordinarily, every day when a person is present in the UK at midnight at the end of the day counts for the purposes of the test. However, certain exceptional days may not be counted. Under her particular circumstances, the second automatic overseas test was relevant meaning that as she was not UK tax resident for any of the preceding three tax years prior to 2015/16, as long as she spent fewer than 46 days in the UK in 2015/16, she would not be UK tax resident. Having spent 50 days in the UK during the tax year, the appellant relied on Schedule 45 para 22 (4) of Finance Act 2013 which provides that a day does not count as a day spent in the UK if a person would not be present in the UK at the end of the day but for exceptional circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from leaving the UK and they intend to leave as soon as those circumstances permit. On two visits totalling six days in December 2015 and February 2016 she was present in the UK at the end of the day because she felt compelled to stay to help her sister who was suffering from alcoholism, was suicidal and was failing to look after her children. She therefore argued that she had only spent 44 days in the UK in 2015/16 and was not therefore UK tax resident. HMRC argued that these reasons did not amount to exceptional circumstances, and that the appellant had not been prevented from leaving the UK. HMRC issued a closure notice amending her tax return to include the dividend as taxable income. The appellant appealed to the FTT which allowed her appeal finding that although the need to care for the consequences of her sister’s alcoholism and depression did not, of itself, constitute exceptional circumstances, the fact that the sister had minor children, for whom the appellant also cared, did in their view change the position. The FTT said that it was unnecessary for a legal obligation to care for the children to exist for there to be an exceptional circumstance and stated that moral obligations and obligations of conscience, including those arising by virtue of a close family relationship, can qualify as exceptional circumstances. Finally, the FTT concluded that those obligations may be strong enough to prevent a taxpayer from leaving the UK. HMRC appealed to the UT putting forward four grounds of appeal, all of which were accepted by the UT. The UT overturned the FTT decision finding that the circumstances of the two visits in question were not exceptional, and that the appellant was not prevented from leaving the UK on any of the days by exceptional circumstances. She was therefore UK tax resident in 2015/16 making the dividend taxable income in the UK. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, including that the UT erred in law in its approach to the test as to whether the appellant was prevented from leaving the UK, and in holding that moral obligations cannot be or cannot be part of the exceptional circumstances. Decision At the heart of the taxpayer’s appeal was whether the appellant’s circumstances were exceptional and whether they prevented her from leaving the UK. The Court held that what prevents someone from leaving the country is not limited to certain defined categories such as a legal obligation or physical impossibility, noting that the statutory example of exceptional circumstances in Schedule 45 para 22 (5) of Finance Act 2013 which refers to a ‘sudden or life-threatening illness or injury’ is not specifically limited to the injury or illness of the taxpayer themselves, or of someone for whom they have a legal duty to care. A moral or societal obligation was suffice and in the Court’s view is likely to have also been intended by Parliament. The Court held that the UT had taken too narrow a view of what could constitute an exceptional circumstance and ruled that the moral or societal obligation that the illness of a relative imposes on a taxpayer can form part of the overall circumstance. This should also be taken account of in considering whether the circumstances as a whole are considered exceptional. The Court allowed the appellant’s appeal on all grounds and restored the decision of the FTT. The full judgment is available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/106?query=A+Taxpayer&court=ewca%2Fciv

David Reaney and Emma Robinson explore HMRC’s publication, ‘Help with VAT compliance controls—Guidelines for Compliance GfC8’ and consider the implications for businesses. GfC8 was published in September 2024, but its profile has fallen well short of what would be expected for a publication of this level of detail and potential significance. On 25 September 2024 HMRC published ‘Help with VAT compliance controls—Guidelines for Compliance GfC8’. This publication has 10 parts and, if printed, would exceed 40 pages in length. On the landing page for the publication, HMRC states: “These Guidelines for Compliance (GfC) set out HMRC’s recommended approach and are designed to help you understand our expectations as you plan, carry out, and review the accounting and compliance processes that ensure VAT is accurately declared by your business.” In this article we have summarised, at a high level, the content within the publication. This summary is not intended to provide knowledge of the detail but rather act as a series of prompts to spark the reader’s interest in exploring it further. We expect that many of these concepts should be familiar to larger businesses but perhaps less so for small or medium sized ones. In our experience the existence of this guidance is not widely known and with HMRC’s clear statement around expectations, especially in an environment of increased audit activity, it is important for businesses to ensure they have considered the application of this guidance to their business. 1. Overview—Key Takeaways In our view, the best way to understand and digest the content is to start with two key messages which are threads running through the content. HMRC expect businesses to have written processes and procedures for their VAT compliance. HMRC expects VAT to be included in an overall tax control framework which should include risks identified, controls to address the risks, an identified owner of the risks and processes to monitor the risks and the response on an ongoing basis. In our experience many businesses still do not have detailed written procedures for VAT compliance and a range of different approaches to tax control frameworks is applied. Given HMRC’s assumption that the ‘digital journey’ under Making Tax Digital for VAT is able to be evidenced, e.g. by flow diagram, we expect almost all businesses will have work to do to meet the HMRC expectations as outlined in GfC8. 2. Summary of Guidelines for Compliance GfC8 The guidelines encompass a range of topics designed to cover the tax compliance process and are set out into 10 different parts. The best way to understand how these fit together is to split them into (i) topics focused on the end-to-end VAT compliance process and (ii) topics which have been identified as specific risks within that process. A. End-to-end process 1. Purpose, scope and audience The guidelines are for UK VAT registered businesses who use invoice accounting, meaning they account for VAT when invoices are issued and received (essentially this will be all VAT registered businesses aside from those operating special schemes, e.g. cash accounting). They provide the taxpayer with HMRC’s recommended approach and are designed to help the taxpayer as it carries out and reviews the accounting and compliance processes to ensure VAT is accurately declared. 2. General approach to VAT compliance controls This section provides information on good practices to help manage VAT accounting and compliance processes which includes (but is not limited to): Risk management; Control design considerations; and Documentation for internal controls. 3. Order-to-cash The overall control objective of Order-to-Cash (‘O2C’) is the timely, complete and accurate recording of transaction and payments. O2C represents the typical set of business functions used to manage Business to Business customer orders from sales order, fulfilment, billing, customer payments and recording transactions in financial accounts.  4. Procure-to Pay The overall control objective of Procure-to-Pay (‘P2P’) is the timely, complete and accurate recording of transactions and payments received. P2P represents the typical set of business functions used to manage Business to Business purchasing processes and include purchase orders, receipt of supply, tax invoice being received, credit notes and discount adjustments and supplier payments. 5. Record to report Record to report (‘R2R’) is an accounting process which involves collecting, processing and presenting information to provide strategic, financial and operational analysis. It also covers the steps involved in preparing and reporting the overall accounts. R2R covers both external and internal reporting and generally, the R2R function is not engaged in processing transactions but instead focuses on the aggregation of existing data to meet reporting requirements. B. Specific risk areas identified 6. Employee expenses Often viewed as a high-risk area by HMRC, expenses processes exist for capturing, authorising and paying various kinds of reimbursed business costs to employees. HMRC has set out guidance for various control points on employee expenses relating to the system configuration, the expense process, business entertainment and auditing the expense claims. 7. VAT reporting Relevant for business who adopt invoice accounting, it includes detail on VAT reporting control objectives for the following categories (note this list is not exhaustive): Organisational unit structure, General ledger posting, Making Tax Digital for VAT regulations, VAT reports, Consolidation of return figures, and Manual adjustments.  8. VAT reporting—manual adjustments Manual adjustments to VAT reporting can occur for different reasons including consolidation of totals from separate business functions or systems. HMRC have included detail on control objectives for common types of adjustments including adjustments for errors and corrections, how to deal with one-off or irregular supplies such as disposal of assets, adjustments under the capital goods scheme or partial exemption restrictions and bad debt adjustments. 9. Outsourcing Businesses processes such as IT services, legal services, financial and accounting services can be outsourced as well as the businesses VAT compliance function. Even where the business chooses to outsource some functions this does not outsource the risk, and legal responsibility remains with the commissioning organisation. 10. Next steps It is expected that businesses may recognise new elements of good practice and it is HMRC’s view that implementing the guidelines can lead to improvements in systems and processes. Businesses are encouraged to take proactive steps to ensure compliance which might include: Reviewing and updating record-keeping practices; Implementing internal compliance audits; Developing a compliance strategy; Engaging with HMRC; and Stay informed about penalties.  3. Conclusion Despite its low profile to date, this guidance marks a key development in the UK's tax compliance landscape. By outlining clear expectations and emphasising the importance of transparency, accountability, and communication, these guidelines aim to foster a more compliant and efficient business environment. Businesses should take proactive steps to align with these guidelines, ensuring that they are well-prepared. With careful planning, businesses can navigate the new compliance framework successfully and avoid potential penalties for non-compliance. Referring back to the two key messages outlined above, we would encourage businesses to review internal written processes on controls and the overall tax control framework to ensure that these would at least meet, if not exceed, HMRC’s expectations. Perhaps the best way to assess your current position is to consider how you would demonstrate that you meet HMRC’s expectations should you be asked to do so in a VAT visit in the near future. Finally, we would encourage particular attention is paid to the specific areas of risk such as employee expenses. If you have queries about any specific section, please contact us. David Reaney FCA, CTA, is Indirect Tax Partner at KPMG Emma Robinson CTA, Indirect Tax Associate Director at KPMG

David Duffy discusses one Irish High Court case in relation to VAT waivers of exemption, as well as Revenue manuals on various matters. Right to deduct VAT In Killarney Consortium v Revenue Commissioners [2024] IEHC 732, the High Court upheld a decision of the Tax Appeals Commission (“TAC”) that a property owner was not liable to a clawback of VAT previously reclaimed as the relevant provisions of Irish VAT law were held to be in breach of EU law. The judgment considered the Irish VAT rules regarding waivers of exemption from VAT on lettings of property. A waiver was an election made by a landlord before 1 July 2008 to charge VAT on its lettings of property with a term of less than 10 years. While no new waivers could commence from 1 July 2008 onwards (as new VAT on property rules became effective on that date), pre-existing waivers continued to apply to lettings in property which had been acquired by the lessor before 1 July 2008. In addition, the legislation continued to provide for a clawback to Revenue of the excess of any input VAT reclaimed over output VAT paid in connection with a waiver, when it was subsequently cancelled. It was these waiver cancellation provisions that were the specific focus of the case. The taxpayer, Killarney Consortium, (the “Consortium”) purchased a property in 2004 for development and letting. The Consortium exercised the waiver of exemption and reclaimed VAT on the purchase of the property and associated costs. However, due to the property market downturn, the property remained vacant for significant periods and the VAT charged on rents was significantly less than the VAT reclaimed. The Consortium sold the property in 2017 at a significant loss. While was paid on the sale of the property, the VAT originally reclaimed still exceeded the VAT paid by approximately €590,000. Irish law provides that where a waiver has been exercised and is subsequently cancelled a clawback of the deficit is payable. Consequently, Revenue issued an assessment to the Consortium for the deficit amount. The Consortium appealed against the Assessment on the basis that the property had only and ever been used by it for taxable activities. It argued that EU VAT law made no provision for a clawback of VAT merely because the level of input VAT deducted exceeded the level of output VAT paid. The TAC had found in favour of the Consortium and determined that the assessment should be reduced to zero. The High Court, in upholding the decision of TAC, confirmed that where a business is fully engaged in taxable supplies (i.e. supplies of goods or services subject to VAT) it has a right to deduct input VAT incurred on purchases used for the purposes of those taxable supplies. This right to deduct arises irrespective of whether VAT charged on supplies exceeds VAT incurred on purchases. Provided VAT is chargeable on supplies, there is a right to deduct VAT incurred on costs associated with those supplies. The High Court held that the waiver cancellation was in these circumstances contrary to EU law and the principle of fiscal neutrality. The High Court referred to several cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union in support of its conclusion, including for example Feudi di San Gregorio Aziende Agricole SpA (C-341/22), where it was held that the right to deduct VAT cannot be limited by future economic performance. As such, the High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner to disapply section 96(12) and reduce the Assessment to zero. We are not yet aware if the judgment will be further appealed by Revenue to the Court of Appeal. Revenue guidance updates Revenue have issued a number of new or updated guidance notes in relation to VAT since 1 January 2025. eBrief No. 001/25 updated the Tax and Duty Manual (“TDM”) on the management of special investment funds. This includes reference to changes in Finance Act 2024 which updated the definition of special investment funds to clarify that an alternative investment fund (“AIF”) managed by an Irish alternative investment fund manager (“AIFM”) comes within the scope of the VAT exemption for fund management. eBrief No. 001/25 issued a new TDM on the VAT treatment of heat pump heating systems. This again ties back to Budget 2025 and Finance Act 2024 changes to introduce the reduced 9% VAT rate to the supply and installation of heat pumps. The TDM notes that, “[t]he supply and installation of a heat pump heating system can include key equipment such as heating controls, radiators, underfloor heating emitters and the associated pipework where required to facilitate the effective/efficient operation of a heat pump.” eBrief No. 051/25 issued a new TDM on the VAT treatment relevant to taxi drivers. This confirms that while taxi services are exempt from VAT, VAT can nonetheless arise on related supplies such as taxi radio charges and facilitation fees charged by online platforms. David Duffy FCA, AITI, Chartered Tax Advisor, is Indirect Tax Partner at KPMG

Leontia Doran takes a look at the key tax changes which take effect from April 2025 and looks ahead at what we can expect in the coming years.    The new tax and financial year always sees a plethora of previously announced tax technical and administrative changes; 6 April 2025 and the start of the new Financial Year 2025 on 1 April 2025 are no different. This article aims to provide a flavour of the key changes taking effect from April 2025 and looks ahead to some major changes in the coming years. Employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) From 1 April 2025, employers are required to pay an increased rate of the National Minimum Wage and just days later from 6 April, a range of changes to employer NICs is resulting in higher wage bills. From 6 April 2025, the rate of Employer NICs increased from 13.8 percent to 15 percent and the 0 percent Employer NICs threshold reduced from £9,100 to £5,000, although the Employer NICs employment allowance increased from £5,000 to £10,500. These increased Employer NICs costs rise more sharply for businesses with lower-income employees which particularly impact on businesses who rely on part time staff such as in the retail and care sectors but especially for hospitality businesses. End of the non-domicile regime From 6 April 2025, the rules for the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals, and specifically the remittance basis (RB) for foreign income/gains, came to an end. However, any foreign income/gains that arose on/before the 5 April 2025 which fell under the remittance basis are taxed under the previous rules when remitted. The concept of domicile as a relevant connecting factor in the UK tax system has now been replaced by a tax residence-based system. The new regime provides 100 percent relief on foreign income/gains for new arrivals to the UK in their first four years of UK tax residence provided the individual was not resident in any of the 10 prior consecutive years. For Capital Gains Tax (CGT) purposes, past remittance basis users are able to rebase foreign assets held on 5 April 2017 to the value at the disposal date provided they were non-UK domiciled up to 5 April 2025. A new Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF) is also available for individuals who previously claimed the RB. This enables them to designate and remit at a reduced tax rate foreign income/ gains prior to 6 April 2025. The TRF is available for a limited period of three tax years commencing in 2025/26 at a 12 percent rate for the first 2 years and 15 percent in the final year. The domicile-based system of Inheritance Tax (IHT) has also been replaced with a new residence-based system for long-term residents owning non-UK property not previously within the scope of UK IHT. An individual is long-term resident when they have been UK tax resident for at least 10 of the previous 20 tax years and they will remain as such three to 10 years after becoming non-resident.  Business asset disposal relief (BADR) and Investors’ Relief (IR) As a result of the increased rates of CGT from 30 October 2024, BADR and IR both increased from 10 percent to 14 percent from 6 April 2025 and both will further increase to 18 percent from 6 April 2026. The lifetime limit (LL) for BADR remains at £1 million. In contrast, the LL for IR reduced from £10 million to £1 million for all qualifying disposals made on or after 30 October 2024. To compound these phased increases, anti-forestalling rules aim to limit potential planning in this area. Treatment of double cab pick-ups (DCPUs) From 1 April 2025 for Corporation Tax and 6 April 2025 for Income tax and NICs purposes, HMRC treats most DCPUs as cars, and not vans, for direct tax purposes. HMRC has therefore changed its policy on these vehicles potentially leading to increased tax bills for employers, employees and businesses. Previously HMRC treated a DCPU with a payload of one tonne or more as a van for the purposes of benefit-in-kind calculations, capital allowances, and certain deductions from business profits. In so doing, HMRC was following the definitions of ‘car’ and ‘van’ that apply for VAT purposes. From April 2025, a vehicle will therefore only be treated as a van if the construction of the vehicle at the time it was made means that it is primarily suited for the conveyance of goods. Tax reporting requirements At the start of each new tax year, HMRC’s self-assessment returns get a bit of a makeover to reflect any changes to legislation. This year, those changes will not only reflect some previously announced decisions but also help deal with late rate changes. CGT rate changes Last October, the Chancellor announced that for gains on assets other than residential property, the basic rate of CGT rate increased from 10 percent to 18 percent, and the higher rate from 20 percent to 24 percent with effect from 30 October 2024.  At that point HMRC had already updated the 2024/25 SA100 return therefore unrepresented taxpayers must use a HMRC calculator to calculate and report an adjustment figure to get the correct CGT position in their return. Agents using commercial software should check that this is reflected correctly in their client’s return.  For trustees/personal representatives, a new adjustment box will be added to that return and a similar calculator will be provided for taxpayers. As a result, HMRC has requested that trusts/estates wait until the 2024/25 SA900 return is published to ensure that the correct rate of CGT is used. Cryptoassets For the first time, individuals with cryptoassets are required to report income/gains arising on these transactions separately on their return. A policy first announced by the previous Chancellor in 2023, this aims to assist HMRC in making use of the data it expects to start receiving from 2027 about these transactions. 2025/26 tax returns  New regulations also bring in further changes for 2025/26. If an unincorporated business commences/ceases in the tax year, the taxpayer must include the date of commencement/cessation in their return. This could prove challenging in scenarios where the relevant date is not easily determined, for example where an individual has been trading under the trading allowance and first needs to begin reporting trading income. Also from 2025/26, director’s receiving dividends from close companies must include the following in their return: Name and registered number of the company; Amount of dividend received from the company (declared separately from other dividends); and Details of the highest percentage of share capital held in the year. Looking ahead It’s also important to look ahead and plan for what future changes are hurtling down the tax tracks at us. 2026/27 will be another exceptional year for tax practitioners with a wide range of changes previously announced and already expected to take effect from 6 April 2026. Mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind In January 2024 the previous Government announced that from 6 April 2026 employers will be required to report and pay Income Tax and class 1A NICs on most benefits in kind (BIKs) in real-time via the employer’s full payment submission, effectively introducing mandatory payrolling of BIKs. Feedback provided to the Government about this change mainly centred around the potential for increases in employer administrative burdens in relation to reporting all BIKs in real-time and that due to potential delays in receiving invoice details of BIKs provided by third parties, accurate real-time reporting would not be possible for invoices received after the end of provision of the benefit. As a result, the Government has announced some amendments as follows:  the real time reporting of and payment of tax on BIKs will not commence from April 2026 for employment related loans and accommodation but will for all other BIKs with voluntary payrolling available for these BIKs from April 2026, The P11D/P11D(b) process will still be available for those that do not want to voluntarily payroll employment related loans and accommodation which will be mandated in due course, an end of year process will be introduced to amend the taxable values of any BIKs that cannot be determined during the tax year. However, the taxable values of most BIKs will still need to be reported as accurately as possible during the tax year, and HMRC will continue to monitor the penalty position in 2026/27 whilst employers get used to the new process of reporting BIKs in recognition that there will inevitably be a period of adjustment in the first year. IHT future changes The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the 2024 Autumn Budget that following the April 2025 changes to IHT territoriality, there would be further significant changes to IHT in the next two tax years.  Firstly, controversial reforms were announced to the IHT reliefs, agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) which are expected to commence from April 2026. A new £1 million allowance will apply to the combined value of property that qualifies for 100 percent BPR or 100 percent APR or both. After this £1 million allowance has been exhausted, relief will apply at a lower rate of 50 percent to the combined value of qualifying agricultural and business property, effectively resulting in a 20 percent rate of IHT. The Government has already stated that it will not be consulting on this policy change, however a technical consultation is expected to take place on the draft legislation and a consultation is currently open seeking views on aspects of the application of the £1 million allowance for property settled into trust. Chartered Accountants Ireland has already discussed its concerns in relation to these proposals with HMRC and has highlighted the particularly damaging impact for Northern Ireland businesses and farms. Secondly, the Budget announced that from 6 April 2027 most unused pension funds and death benefits will be included within the value of a person’s estate for IHT purposes. Pension scheme administrators will also become liable for reporting and paying any IHT due on pensions to HMRC. Making Tax Digital (MTD) for Income Tax MTD for Income Tax is now less than a year from commencement with the first quarterly returns due to be submitted to HMRC on or before 7 August 2026. From 6 April 2026, the first phase of mandation for this major project commences for unincorporated businesses and landlords with total gross income from self-employment (excluding partnership income) and property in 2024/25 exceeding £50,000. Those with total gross income exceeding £30,000 will be mandated from 6 April 2027. Other income sources are not counted when assessing if the MTD turnover limit for mandation has been breached. In the Autumn Budget, the Government announced that the total gross income limit will drop to £20,000, the timeline for which will be set out at a later date within the current Parliament with no timeline currently set for the mandation of partnerships. Currently, taxpayers can voluntarily sign up to participate in testing MTD for Income Tax ahead of mandation. If a taxpayer is exempt or chose not to sign up voluntarily during the testing period, they must continue to report income and gains in a Self-Assessment tax return. If certain conditions are met, a taxpayer may be automatically exempt from MTD and does not need to apply for an exemption. MTD requires mandated taxpayers to: maintain digital accounting records in a software product/spreadsheet (paper records will not satisfy the legislative requirements), and submit quarterly updates to HMRC by the seventh day of the month after each quarter end (5 July, 5 October, 5 January and 5 April unless calendar months are elected for), and finalise their tax position after the end of the tax year (the final declaration is due by 31 January after the end of the tax year). Quarterly updates must be submitted using functional compatible software which can interact with HMRC's API (application program interface). This will require the taxpayer to either purchase a suitable commercial software product or appoint an agent to submit information to HMRC on their behalf using such software. Quarterly updates are intended to be a simple summary of transactions and a final, year-end return will also be required within which any tax and accounting adjustments will be made. The due dates for paying tax will be unchanged. Agents and taxpayers should take action now to prepare for this major change and consider signing up voluntarily to testing in 2025/26 which is subject to a number of eligibility conditions. Agents should also plan ahead and consider the impact on their practice and the steps needed to prepare both their business and their clients. Leontia Doran is UK Tax Manager and Tax NI Subject Lead for Student Education with Chartered Accountants Ireland. Email: leontia.doran@charteredaccountants.ie

Maura Ginty of Gintax discusses the Start-up Relief for Entrepreneurs. She explains how this all too often overlooked relief is potentially extremely valuable to new-stage entrepreneurs leaving employment to commence their own business venture.  Start-Up Relief for Entrepreneurs (SURE) is an Irish income tax relief targeted at founders of new businesses who leave employment to start their own company full time. The relief works so the individual can receive a refund of Irish income tax paid over the prior seven years on an investment in their new company. A total of twenty-seven individuals claimed the relief in 2022, with only a slightly higher number of claimants in 2021 and 2020.  Anecdotal experience suggests that many more could have been entitled to the relief.  To my mind there are two primary reasons for this—the complexity and the investment requirement.  While in some respects these are valid concerns, they are not insurmountable, and should not be the immediate ‘dealbreakers’ they seem to have become.  This article gives a general overview of the relief and the key provisions that are likely to have an impact in practice. It does not attempt to be comprehensive and is intended to be a general overview to establish potential eligibility. First, some further background on the two challenges noted above. The headline challenges 1. The regime generally / complexity The SURE regime is complex and convoluted.  SURE is drafted as an add-on to the Employment Investment Incentive Scheme (EIIS) rules with the EIIS being the tax incentive scheme for third party individual investors in Irish SMEs. For SURE, a founder needs to meet specific SURE requirements in addition to general EIIS rules. The specific EIIS sensitivities are well trodden by now but to refresh: EIIS is niche area of tax law with any eligible investments triggering a tax risk for the business – even an administrative error can result in full clawback of investor tax relief as a company liability.  The EIIS regime is a form of EU State Aid, with many terms in Irish law imposed directly from EU regulation albeit with no formal definitions attaching to these terms (which would be the norm in Irish tax law). Helpfully, this is one of the few areas of tax law in which a taxpayer may request an advance opinion from the Revenue Commissioners.  However, there is no time limit for Revenue engagement, and this creates further uncertainty for clients (usually in midst of a fundraising round with a 31 December deadline). Notwithstanding the above, in my view, many of the peculiar EIIS sensitivities resulting from EU regulations should not impact a new stage business, such as a SURE company, particularly in cases where a founder was simply an employee with no other business or family business interests. Certainly, there are aspects which will require careful management, such as preparation of a formal business plan, but these should not lead practitioners and their clients to discount a SURE claim. 2. Requirements for founder to invest in share capital Another reason for low take up is the requirement for a founder to invest in actual share capital of the company.  In contrast, the default market practice tends to be the issue of nominal share capital to the founder with any further investment being simply lent by them to the company, as a director’s loan. The latter is straightforward and as the company generates cashflow, the loan can be repaid in a tax neutral manner.  The initial client conversation in relation to SURE usually stops on this topic. However, to my mind, two further factors need to be borne in mind: Where a company is to subsequently seek external investors, then it is often a commercial requirement that any directors loan is converted into share capital at that point in time.  In many cases, at that stage it is too late to claim SURE in relation to the founder investment. Even after a SURE investment, it is still possible for the founder to take a salary from the company which will enable them to finance their day to day living expenses at startup stage. While salary is taxable income, it should be noted that the effective Irish tax rate for a single individual on a €30,000 salary is circa 12 per cent (being USC, PRSI and income tax after credits). This can be contrasted favourably with SURE tax relief which now can result in maximum refund of up to 50 per cent of the amount invested. Overview of the relief On paper, the relief appears generous with a maximum relief in any single tax year of €140,000 but this can potentially be claimed over 7 separate years. As a result, technically a single cash investment of up to €980,000 would be eligible for relief.  The relief ideally suits an individual who had a substantial employment income in recent years (such as share option gains, termination payment or even simply a significant salary), has no other business interests and wishes to commence a new business. Tax relief available There were significant changes introduced to the EIIS regime, effective from 1 January 2024 as a result of amendments to the underlying EU regulation. Prior to this, the quantum of tax relief available was at a person’s marginal rate (up to 40 percent) for qualifying investments, subject to an overall cap. The new changes result in varying amounts of relief, depending on the particular stage of the business life cycle.    These changes now apply to SURE investments. I would expect that most qualifying SURE claims could be eligible for tax refunds at up to 50 per cent or 35 per cent of the amount of investment. The differing rates apply as follows: Where the company is not yet operating in any market, the rules operate so that an income tax refund of up to 50 per cent of the investment could be available (relief is available at 125 per cent of the amount invested;  the marginal income tax rate is 40 per cent).  The term “not operating in any market” derives from EU regulation and Irish Revenue regard this as an operation that has not yet made its first commercial sale.  Where a company is operating in a market, then a tax refund of up to 35 per cent could be available (relief available at 87.5 per cent of the amount invested). For the reliefs noted above (50 per cent and 35 per cent), the investment would need to be classified as “initial risk finance” which relates to early-stage companies (as defined). Most SURE eligible investments should be in this “initial risk” category. However, there is a technical provision for a lower rate to apply. In the context of the terms above, the requirements (as to first commercial sale/initial risk finance, etc.) technically need to be met by all entities within an “RICT group”—a concept derived from EU Regulation.  Further, many other EIIS conditions apply by reference to this concept. For SURE specifically, I would expect that a newly established business owned by an individual who had been in long term employment (with no other business interests) to be a standalone “RICT group”. Thus, the references in this article are to a singular company. SURE – headline conditions The key conditions for SURE are:  A company must be established carrying on a new business. There is two-year window to make the SURE investment and it must be made by 31 December in the second year after the company’s incorporation. The trade activity must be new, and the company cannot have taken over an existing trade, such as a sole trade.  The individual must: Have mainly employment (PAYE) income in the previous four years. Take up full-time employment in the new company - an existing employment can be retained for up to 10 hours per week (there is no stipulation as to salary level). Invest cash in the new company by acquiring shares - there is also a provision for relief on conversion of existing directors’ loans within a certain timeframe (this route will require an auditor’s statement). Retain the shares for at least four years. Hold at least 15 percent of the shares in the company. Not hold more than 15 percent of any other company (this requirement can rule out many employees who have had other business ventures). There is a requirement that the company carry on “relevant trading activities”—this definition includes most trades apart from those on an “excluded” list. Excluded trades include financing activities, professional services, and land dealing. Professional services are specifically defined and include legal, accounting and medical services.  The exclusion does not extend to engineering or computer programming. “Research and Development and Innovation” activities may also be permissible. The relief could apply to new tech startups or also to those entering traditional sectors, including consultancy services.  Specific EIIS requirements for SURE investments Qualifying company The company will need to be regarded as a “qualifying company” which is the same requirement as the current EIIS rules. This involves tests such as being an SME, satisfying the “undertaking in difficulty” test, and the requirement to have tax clearance. The conditions can be limiting—especially the requirement that the company cannot be under the control of another company—limiting flexibility for founders, or other controlling shareholders, with a holding company structure often their preference.  Qualifying investment Similarly, the EIIS “qualifying investment” requirements will need to be met—key here is that the money must contribute directly to the creation or maintenance of employment.  While the EIIS conditions requiring there to be no arrangements to reduce investor risk are still applicable, in practice they should not cause any commercial difficulty for a founding shareholder. The investment must be based on a business plan. In drafting the plan, consideration should be given to the scenario where EIIS is either to be offered or potentially offered to new external investors. Administrative requirements / clawback risk There are administrative requirements which need to be met including submission of a specific tax return (RICT return) by the company and provision of a Statement of Qualification (SQSURE3) to the founder. The actual technical administrative requirements are not unduly onerous, but it is critical they are met. Similar to EIIS, there is a provision which deems clawback of tax relief to be a liability of the company in certain cases, e.g. where the Statement of Qualification is incorrect, such that the company will not be considered a “qualifying company”. Summary In conclusion, while SURE relief offers significant potential benefits for founders of new businesses, its complexity and specific requirements (outside of commercial norms) have clearly limited the uptake. There has been much lobbying of Government to simplify the entire suite of investment reliefs, with particular focus on the prohibition of a holding company and for SURE specifically, its restriction to employees only. Given the lack of success to date, one would suggest that all stakeholders reconsider the SURE rules as they stand—especially for cases where founders are satisfied to progress with a standalone company. One also hopes the soon-to-be updated Irish Revenue guidance documentation on SURE/EIIS will better assist all parties navigate matters here. Maura Ginty is a Chartered Accountant and Chartered Tax Advisor with over 20 years of professional experience advising clients. She advises Irish and international businesses at all stages of development from start-up, expansion in Ireland and abroad, acquisition, day-to-day operations, and restructuring to succession and disposal.