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)?
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.
Related Topics
-
Asbestos problem - can a tax break help with the cost?
Asbestos has been discovered during the refurbishment of one of your company’s factories. Environmental waste rules are going make it expensive to remove. How might a tax break mitigate the cost?
-
Self-employed set for penalty reprieve
Over 1m people missed the 31 January filing deadline last week and will shortly be receiving automatic £100 penalties as a result. However, HMRC has announced that the penalty won’t be enforced for the self-employed - but only in limited circumstances. Are you eligible?
-
Can you claw back enhanced maternity/adoption pay?
If you agree to pay more than the statutory minimum during maternity/adoption leave, can you ask an employee to sign an agreement under which they agree to pay back the enhancement in certain circumstances?