Tax Journal

Kyle Rainsford (Addleshaw Goddard) analyses the Court of Appeal’s reasoning on treaty abuse, ‘taking advantage’ and the future interpretation of principal purpose tests.

The Court of Appeal reins in HMRC’s reading of Rangers, confirming that a genuine EBT loan is not taxable earnings, write Dominic Stuttaford and Katharine Wadia (Norton Rose Fulbright).

Mike Lane and Zoe Andrews (Slaughter and May) provide their unique perspective on the impact of recent rulings from the higher courts and the OECD’s latest findings on the UK’s rising tax burden on labour.

Recent judgments provide clear warnings that the tribunals will look beyond the contractual labels in offshore arrangements to the underlying reality of who benefits from and controls the workforce, write Leah Fisher, Steven Porter and Victoria Hine (Addleshaw Goddard).

Liesl Fichardt and Julius Berling (Quinn Emanuel) assess the Upper Tribunal ruling in Lycamobile and its implications beyond telecoms.

Paul Farey (AECOM) assesses how the Supreme Court’s stricter approach narrows the scope for capital allowances on preparatory expenditure.

Glyn Edwards (MHA) examines an apparent increase in HMRC strike-out applications and why many are failing to clear the tribunal’s high threshold.

Nigel Watson and Claire Withers (Burges Salmon) consider the extension of EMI option terms to 15 years and the practical implications for plan design, legacy options and compliance.