One minute with Lee Ellis, partner and barrister in the tax disputes team at KPMG Law.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
Having recently joined the KPMG tax disputes team, a significant part of my work currently involves getting to know new colleagues and building relationships across the wider business, with a view to our working together to assists clients. On my desk at the moment is a mix of disputes work in relation to existing or proposed R&D claims under both the RDEC and SME schemes, a complex request for clearance in relation to a large international re-structuring, and assistance on a number of CFC enquiries and other international tax related matters.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I suspect (ok, I know) I am being somewhat ambitious, but I would re-write TMA 1970 (and the associated rules now scattered across various Finance Acts, most notably FA 1998 Sch 18) which deal with management of the various taxes. The rules are at best disparate and difficult to navigate, and arguably not fit for purpose (the Act after all pre-dates the introduction of self-assessment). A well-designed system, following the filing of a return, which provides a single time limited enquiry process with rules on information requests and rights of review built in, is likely to be more efficient and lead to better outcomes for HMRC and taxpayers alike.
What do know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Two broad things. Firstly, the importance of nurturing and maintaining relationships (not simply networking) to grow, develop and enrich a career. Secondly, to speak up, all be it not without first listening, and not at the expense of others.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
Yes, the Court of Appeal’s decision in London Luton Hotel BPRA Property Fund LLP v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 362, a capital allowances case. What caught my attention was the court’s consideration of the meaning of ‘in connection with’ for the purposes of accessing the business premises renovation allowance (BPRA).Having confirmed that the meaning must be derived from the statutory context and the policy intention of the legislation, the court held that the words ‘in connection with’ should be construed ‘relatively narrowly’.
Whilst the decision will be of relevance for other outstanding BPRA claims (the BPRA regime having been the subject of various marketed avoidance schemes), it will likely also be seen to be of wider importance. HMRC continues to pay close attention to claims for other capital allowances, such as those for investment in plant and machinery, structures and buildings, and extraction of minerals. Taxpayers should be alert to HMRC seeking to rely on the court’s judgement to adopt a narrow approach to other capital allowances. Similar language appears in other areas of the tax code, so HMRC may again seek to rely on what was said by the Court of Appeal to support a narrow interpretation of the relevant legislative provision/regime.
What should we look out for later this year?
From a corporate direct tax perspective, I expect HMRC to continue to focus on application of various purpose tests, not just in respect of the loan relationships regime and for there to be increased activity in relation to various claims for tax relief – from claims for incentives (such as R&D and patent box), to claims for capital allowances, to claims for the use of losses. For individuals, I expect continuing activity in relation to domicile/residence and business disposals.
You might not know this about me but...
I am dyslexic and it was only at university that I was diagnosed (my sporting ambitions having come and gone, but that’s another story). Having been diagnosed, I now consider my dyslexia to be my (secret?) superpower. Understanding dyslexia, and the techniques and strategies I have learnt, has helped me greatly in my career in acting on complex tax disputes.
One minute with Lee Ellis, partner and barrister in the tax disputes team at KPMG Law.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
Having recently joined the KPMG tax disputes team, a significant part of my work currently involves getting to know new colleagues and building relationships across the wider business, with a view to our working together to assists clients. On my desk at the moment is a mix of disputes work in relation to existing or proposed R&D claims under both the RDEC and SME schemes, a complex request for clearance in relation to a large international re-structuring, and assistance on a number of CFC enquiries and other international tax related matters.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I suspect (ok, I know) I am being somewhat ambitious, but I would re-write TMA 1970 (and the associated rules now scattered across various Finance Acts, most notably FA 1998 Sch 18) which deal with management of the various taxes. The rules are at best disparate and difficult to navigate, and arguably not fit for purpose (the Act after all pre-dates the introduction of self-assessment). A well-designed system, following the filing of a return, which provides a single time limited enquiry process with rules on information requests and rights of review built in, is likely to be more efficient and lead to better outcomes for HMRC and taxpayers alike.
What do know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Two broad things. Firstly, the importance of nurturing and maintaining relationships (not simply networking) to grow, develop and enrich a career. Secondly, to speak up, all be it not without first listening, and not at the expense of others.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
Yes, the Court of Appeal’s decision in London Luton Hotel BPRA Property Fund LLP v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 362, a capital allowances case. What caught my attention was the court’s consideration of the meaning of ‘in connection with’ for the purposes of accessing the business premises renovation allowance (BPRA).Having confirmed that the meaning must be derived from the statutory context and the policy intention of the legislation, the court held that the words ‘in connection with’ should be construed ‘relatively narrowly’.
Whilst the decision will be of relevance for other outstanding BPRA claims (the BPRA regime having been the subject of various marketed avoidance schemes), it will likely also be seen to be of wider importance. HMRC continues to pay close attention to claims for other capital allowances, such as those for investment in plant and machinery, structures and buildings, and extraction of minerals. Taxpayers should be alert to HMRC seeking to rely on the court’s judgement to adopt a narrow approach to other capital allowances. Similar language appears in other areas of the tax code, so HMRC may again seek to rely on what was said by the Court of Appeal to support a narrow interpretation of the relevant legislative provision/regime.
What should we look out for later this year?
From a corporate direct tax perspective, I expect HMRC to continue to focus on application of various purpose tests, not just in respect of the loan relationships regime and for there to be increased activity in relation to various claims for tax relief – from claims for incentives (such as R&D and patent box), to claims for capital allowances, to claims for the use of losses. For individuals, I expect continuing activity in relation to domicile/residence and business disposals.
You might not know this about me but...
I am dyslexic and it was only at university that I was diagnosed (my sporting ambitions having come and gone, but that’s another story). Having been diagnosed, I now consider my dyslexia to be my (secret?) superpower. Understanding dyslexia, and the techniques and strategies I have learnt, has helped me greatly in my career in acting on complex tax disputes.
