Skip to content
Thursday 20 August 2026London --:--Frankfurt --:--Zurich --:--
NewslettersSearchEN · DE · FR
MorningWire

European business, markets and politics

FTSE 100
10,748.16
+0.04%
DAX
25,983.04
-0.42%
CAC 40
8,453.09
-0.57%
STOXX 50
6,422.06
-0.35%
  • Europe
  • Markets
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Regulation
  • Politics
  • Opinion
More
GermanyFranceEU InstitutionsCompetitionPublic AffairsBankingTechnologyEnergy
  • Germany
  • France
  • Europe
  • Markets
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Regulation
  • Politics
  • Opinion
  • DE
What is City Talk? City Talk allows marketers to connect directly with our audience by publishing content on morningwire.eu
Tuesday 15 June 2021 5:00 am  |  Updated:  Monday 14 June 2021 5:30 pm

To notify or not to notify? The potential perils of uncertain tax treatments

By: Susan Cattell CTA

Add as a preferred source on Google
Shutterstock
Shutterstock

The Government is proposing that large businesses should be required to notify uncertain tax treatments to HMRC. ICAS has responded to the second HMRC consultation on the proposals – the fundamental flaw in the original proposals has not been addressed. They remain poorly targeted, so will potentially impose a burden on all large businesses.

Why was a second consultation needed?

HMRC first consulted on the potential notification requirement in 2020. The stated intention was to tackle the legal interpretation element of the Tax Gap, ie tax losses which HMRC believes arise where the taxpayer’s and HMRC’s interpretation of the law, and how it applies in a particular case, result in a different tax outcome.

 ICAS responded and highlighted that the proposals were poorly targeted, involved a highly subjective definition of ‘uncertain tax treatments’ and would impose unnecessary burdens on all large companies and partnerships, including the majority who want to work cooperatively with HMRC.

Other stakeholders shared many of the ICAS concerns and implementation was deferred to allow time for a second consultation on revised proposals. The government now intends the notification requirement to apply to transactions in returns due to be filed after April 2022, with legislation to be included in Finance Bill 2021-22.

ICAS response to the second consultation

The revised 2021 proposals attempt to take account of some of the concerns raised, but the ICAS response notes that the fundamental flaw in the original proposals – poor targeting – has not been addressed.

The taxes within scope have been reduced – the requirement will now only apply to Corporation Tax, Income Tax (including PAYE) and VAT. This has facilitated an improvement in the timing of notifications. Instead of notification being required once a year for all taxes, the timing will be aligned with the date when the last relevant return for the financial year in question is due.

Read more

Think your tax affairs are settled? Think again.

HMRC

The definition of ‘uncertain tax treatment’ has been improved but there remain areas of subjectivity and considerable uncertainty. Unless there are further amendments, trying to decide whether there is a need to notify or not, is likely to remain challenging and the main proposed exemption seems unlikely to assist in many cases.

The Government and HMRC appear to be trying to address a problem with a minority of uncooperative large businesses – as illustrated by the predicted yield, which is very small compared to the legal interpretation part of the tax gap or to the size of the large businesses in scope. Even in its revised form, the notification requirement will affect the entire large business population and impose unnecessary burdens on the cooperative majority.

Proper targeting is essential

If the Government decides to go ahead, the requirement should be amended so that it only applies to the minority of uncooperative large businesses – not to all large businesses. One possibility might be to extend existing legislation which already imposes sanctions on uncooperative large businesses, to include the notification requirement as an additional sanction.

The compliant majority want to work constructively in real time with HMRC but are experiencing increasing difficulties in doing so, due to HMRC resource constraints. We expect that the proposed requirement will generate unnecessary (and in some cases duplicate) disclosures which will waste time and resources for compliant businesses and HMRC, and increase pressure on both.

The consultation recognises that HMRC will require additional resources to consider the notifications and caseworkers to enquire into them. It would be far more constructive, and more likely to achieve the stated objectives, if additional resources were directed to the existing HMRC Customer Compliance Manager (CCM) and Business Risk Review regime instead. The majority of large businesses would then be able to engage with HMRC in real time, reliably and consistently, with a greater likelihood of resolving uncertainties quickly – and HMRC could also increase its engagement and compliance activities with currently uncooperative large businesses.

The ICAS response also covers a range of issues with the proposals in more detail, including the proposed main exemption, the definition of uncertain tax treatment and the reporting threshold.

Read more

Why HMRC is huge Premier League transfer window tax headache

Two jubilant soccer players in white England jerseys celebrate a goal on the field.

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Email

Similarly tagged content:

Sections

  • Jobs and Money
  • Markets & Economics
  • News

Categories

  • Banking
  • Business
  • Economics
  • Markets
  • Money

Trending Articles

  • Jobless Banquet: Youth unemployment surge ‘sends Neets to KFC’

  • Amanda Blanc has worked her magic at Aviva

  • City law firm sues prominent Emirati business family

  • House prices in wealthy London boroughs fall by up to £300,000

  • As it happened: Miners fuel FTSE 100 recovery; oil jumps as Trump claims Strait of Hormuz

More from Morning Wire

  • Think your tax affairs are settled? Think again.

    Opinion
    HMRC
  • Why HMRC is huge Premier League transfer window tax headache

    Sport Business
    Two jubilant soccer players in white England jerseys celebrate a goal on the field.
  • Wimbledon: HMRC set to slap Sinner and Noskova with £1.6m tax bill

    Sport Business
    Getty Images logo on a sleek black background, symbolizing reliable sources for high-quality stock photography and media c...
  • Five-star Mayfair hotel hit with HMRC winding-up petition

    Hospitality
    Exterior of The Stafford London hotel, a brick building with British and American flags, elegant windows, and ornate raili...
  • AIM-Listed Pulsar Group hit with High Court petition by HMRC

    Media
    HMRC overcharged pensioners thousands
  • Gino D’Acampo restaurants face HMRC winding-up order

    Hospitality
    Gino DAcampo, smiling in a bright yellow jacket, against a dark background with GES & CO and WHSmith logos
  • Thin end of the wedge? LLPs brace for major tax overhaul

    Tax
    Canada
  • HMRC claws back £1m cutting ties with outside tech suppliers

    Tech
    HMRC overcharged pensioners thousands
MorningWire

Independent European business, markets and political news for decision-makers.

Morning Briefing

Europe

  • Germany
  • France
  • EU Institutions
  • Europe

Business

  • Markets
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Regulation
  • Competition
  • Public Affairs

Editorial

  • Opinion
  • Editorial Policy
  • Corrections
  • Contact

Company

  • About Morning Wire
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Policy
© 2026 Morning Wire Ltd · Published by Morning Wire Media, Bahnhofstrasse 65, 8001 Zürich, Switzerland
Privacy · Terms · Cookies · Facebook