Shortly before a 4-week trial was due to commence, HMRC conceded that the appeal of Ducas Ltd (part of the Maxipay group) should be allowed in full and the associated Freezing Orders discharged. HMRC are also to pay Ducas’ costs on the indemnity basis. There will also be an enquiry as to damages caused by the Freezing Orders.
The background to the appeal was that, in November 2024, HMRC issued Ducas with a £171m assessment under the agency legislation - the NICs equivalent of s. 44 ITEPA 2003. HMRC also obtained Freezing Orders against Ducas and other Maxipay companies on an ex parte (without notice) basis. HMRC also later brought proceedings against the Maxipay UBO and secured a Freezing Order on an ex parte basis - that claim has also been discontinued and the Freezing Order discharged.
Since November 2024, there have been numerous hearings in the High Court and the FTT in which we secured:
- the listing of a speedy trial;
- the continuation of a cross undertaking in damages on the Freezing Orders (which will now form the basis of the enquiry as to damages);
- a very favourable High Court costs decision after various interlocutory hearings in which the Judge praised the companies’ ‘mature’ and ‘sensible’ approach to the Freezing Orders (HMRC v Ducas Ltd and Others [2025] EWHC 226 (Ch) [2025] Costs L.R. 1095); and
- heightened disclosure from HMRC.
The team also successfully resisted an appeal by HMRC to the Upper Tribunal in relation to disclosure which resulted in HMRC being ordered to pay Ducas’ costs of that appeal (HMRC v Ducas Ltd [2025] UKUT 362 (TCC) [2025] S.T.C. 1843): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6903308692779f89baa51fc2/HMRC_v_Ducas_Ltd_-_Final_Decision_.pdf
Iain MacWhannell instructed David Bedenham KC and Chris Stone KC of Devereux Chambers.
Iain, David, and Chris were greatly assisted by the wider JHAB team which included Thomas Hemming, Julia Glukhikh, Jono Gould, Tessa Hocking, John Hayton, Charlotte Agnew-Harington and Seth Cumming.
In September 2025, HMRC published “Guidelines for Compliance - GfC13” relevant to taxpayers who are:
• Uncertain of the correct interpretation of the law after making their best efforts to resolve the ambiguity.
• Considering / adopting a novel or improbable interpretation of the law, including after taking professional advice
The guidelines highlight the legal obligation of the taxpayer to provide a tax submission document that is correct (in both fact and law) and complete to the best of their knowledge. In adopting a filing position, HMRC make it clear that:
• A taxpayer has an obligation to make best efforts to resolve uncertainty on how the law should be applied before making tax filings.
• When seeking professional advice, this must be from a suitably qualified advisor.
• Where more than one interpretation of the law might be applied, the taxpayer must choose the interpretation that they believe is, on balance, most likely correct.
• The taxpayer is encouraged to disclose any novel interpretation / uncertainty to HMRC.
One to many postal campaign
Since the publication of the new guidelines, HMRC have written to wealthy taxpayers, asking them to review this guidance and complete an anonymous survey to collate feedback.
Implications for taxpayers
The issued guidelines do not represent a change in the law but HMRC will no doubt refer to them when making an assessment of taxpayer behaviour in relation to penalties. Careful reference to the guidelines should help the taxpayer (in a self-assessment system) reduce the risks of compliance checks and unexpected tax liabilities.
The publication of these guidelines forms a significant part of HMRC’s broader efforts to enhance compliance standards targeted at both taxpayers and also advisers who from May 2026 will be subject to mandatory government registration.
To read the article on Tax Journal click: here
There were several measures introduced by the 2025 Budget that will be of particular interest to HNW internationally mobile individuals, and I highlight a few of these below.
£5m IHT cap for pre-October 2024 EPTs: There will be a £5m cap on IHT payable by a discretionary trust over a ten-year period (to include exit charges and the decennial charge) for pre-30 October 2024 excluded property trusts to be introduced with retrospective effect from 6 April 2025. This broadly means that trusts with more than £83m of excluded property will pay less IHT.
The cap will be stepped from 6 April 2025 (the date upon which these trusts will have become relevant property) to the first ten-year anniversary after that date as that period will not be as long as 10 years, in this period the cap is £125,000 per quarter.
This is a welcome concession given that the IHT trust changes were a key part of what made FA 2025 so troublesome for EPTs. The £5m cap applies per trust.
APR/BPR £1m allowance to be transferable between spouses: In relation to the changes to APR/BPR due to come into force from 5 April 2026, the Budget sets out that any unutilised amount of the £1m 100% relief allowance can be transferred between spouses.
Miscellaneous IHT provisions: Anti-avoidance IHT provisions are being introduced to address various government concerns, including in relation to situs of IHT chargeable assets, as well as restricting charitable exemption to gifts made directly to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs.
Extension to temporary non-residence rules: Currently the temporary non-UK resident anti-avoidance provisions do not apply where there is a dividend or distribution from post departure trade profits to the individual in a non-UK resident year. Where the year of return is 2026/27 or later this will change. The post-departure trade profits legislative provisions are to be removed. This means that an individual who returns to the UK, without more than five complete tax years of non-UK residence, will be taxed on all distributions/dividends they receive in the years of non-residence from: (i) UK resident close companies; and (ii) non-UK resident companies that would be close if UK resident where:
• they held the shares prior to departure; and
• they are either (a) a material participator in the company or (b) an associate of a material participator in the company.
Specific legislation will allow for relief in respect of any foreign tax paid.
Remittance basis: Specific technical amendments (to ensure that the legislation operates as intended) are to be made to the FA 2025 legislation that removed the remittance basis from 2025/26 onwards and introduced the residence-based tax system. There is no specific detail as yet, but it has been announced that there will be further developments to bolster tax incentives for high talent new arrivals. This appears to mean making changes to the current four-year FIG and foreign employment earnings regimes.
Offshore anti-avoidance legislation: The Budget documentation refers to the Government’s commitment to substantially simplify the offshore structure anti-avoidance provisions (such as the CGT attribution provisions and the transfer of assets abroad legislation). The Government has pledged to proactively engage with representative bodies and stakeholders in this regard. It seems unlikely that there will be any significant changes here before 2027/28.
Property: The tax burden on holding UK property will increase. A new separate tax rate is being introduced for property income which will be taxed at 22/42/47%, so at a higher income tax rate than any other income (relief for finance charges will continue to be restricted). In addition, the Budget introduced a high value council tax surcharge (HVCTS) to be introduced from 2028/29 with respect to properties valued at over £2m. Like ATED borrowing is not deducted and there are different rates depending on the value of the property. For 2028/29, the lowest rate is £2,500 for property worth between £2m and £2.5m with the highest charge being £7,500 for £5m plus properties. There will be specific provisions applying to properties held within structures. Specific reference is made to relief for those who are required to live in the property as a condition of their job.
Lynnette Bober, Director, Joseph Hage Aaronson & Bremen
Shortly before a 4-week trial was due to commence, HMRC conceded that the appeal of Ducas Ltd (part of the Maxipay group) should be allowed in full and the associated Freezing Orders discharged. HMRC are also to pay Ducas’ costs on the indemnity basis. There will also be an enquiry as to damages caused by the Freezing Orders.
The background to the appeal was that, in November 2024, HMRC issued Ducas with a £171m assessment under the agency legislation - the NICs equivalent of s. 44 ITEPA 2003. HMRC also obtained Freezing Orders against Ducas and other Maxipay companies on an ex parte (without notice) basis. HMRC also later brought proceedings against the Maxipay UBO and secured a Freezing Order on an ex parte basis - that claim has also been discontinued and the Freezing Order discharged.
Since November 2024, there have been numerous hearings in the High Court and the FTT in which we secured:
- the listing of a speedy trial;
- the continuation of a cross undertaking in damages on the Freezing Orders (which will now form the basis of the enquiry as to damages);
- a very favourable High Court costs decision after various interlocutory hearings in which the Judge praised the companies’ ‘mature’ and ‘sensible’ approach to the Freezing Orders (HMRC v Ducas Ltd and Others [2025] EWHC 226 (Ch) [2025] Costs L.R. 1095); and
- heightened disclosure from HMRC.
The team also successfully resisted an appeal by HMRC to the Upper Tribunal in relation to disclosure which resulted in HMRC being ordered to pay Ducas’ costs of that appeal (HMRC v Ducas Ltd [2025] UKUT 362 (TCC) [2025] S.T.C. 1843): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6903308692779f89baa51fc2/HMRC_v_Ducas_Ltd_-_Final_Decision_.pdf
Iain MacWhannell instructed David Bedenham KC and Chris Stone KC of Devereux Chambers.
Iain, David, and Chris were greatly assisted by the wider JHAB team which included Thomas Hemming, Julia Glukhikh, Jono Gould, Tessa Hocking, John Hayton, Charlotte Agnew-Harington and Seth Cumming.
In September 2025, HMRC published “Guidelines for Compliance - GfC13” relevant to taxpayers who are:
• Uncertain of the correct interpretation of the law after making their best efforts to resolve the ambiguity.
• Considering / adopting a novel or improbable interpretation of the law, including after taking professional advice
The guidelines highlight the legal obligation of the taxpayer to provide a tax submission document that is correct (in both fact and law) and complete to the best of their knowledge. In adopting a filing position, HMRC make it clear that:
• A taxpayer has an obligation to make best efforts to resolve uncertainty on how the law should be applied before making tax filings.
• When seeking professional advice, this must be from a suitably qualified advisor.
• Where more than one interpretation of the law might be applied, the taxpayer must choose the interpretation that they believe is, on balance, most likely correct.
• The taxpayer is encouraged to disclose any novel interpretation / uncertainty to HMRC.
One to many postal campaign
Since the publication of the new guidelines, HMRC have written to wealthy taxpayers, asking them to review this guidance and complete an anonymous survey to collate feedback.
Implications for taxpayers
The issued guidelines do not represent a change in the law but HMRC will no doubt refer to them when making an assessment of taxpayer behaviour in relation to penalties. Careful reference to the guidelines should help the taxpayer (in a self-assessment system) reduce the risks of compliance checks and unexpected tax liabilities.
The publication of these guidelines forms a significant part of HMRC’s broader efforts to enhance compliance standards targeted at both taxpayers and also advisers who from May 2026 will be subject to mandatory government registration.
To read the article on Tax Journal click: here
There were several measures introduced by the 2025 Budget that will be of particular interest to HNW internationally mobile individuals, and I highlight a few of these below.
£5m IHT cap for pre-October 2024 EPTs: There will be a £5m cap on IHT payable by a discretionary trust over a ten-year period (to include exit charges and the decennial charge) for pre-30 October 2024 excluded property trusts to be introduced with retrospective effect from 6 April 2025. This broadly means that trusts with more than £83m of excluded property will pay less IHT.
The cap will be stepped from 6 April 2025 (the date upon which these trusts will have become relevant property) to the first ten-year anniversary after that date as that period will not be as long as 10 years, in this period the cap is £125,000 per quarter.
This is a welcome concession given that the IHT trust changes were a key part of what made FA 2025 so troublesome for EPTs. The £5m cap applies per trust.
APR/BPR £1m allowance to be transferable between spouses: In relation to the changes to APR/BPR due to come into force from 5 April 2026, the Budget sets out that any unutilised amount of the £1m 100% relief allowance can be transferred between spouses.
Miscellaneous IHT provisions: Anti-avoidance IHT provisions are being introduced to address various government concerns, including in relation to situs of IHT chargeable assets, as well as restricting charitable exemption to gifts made directly to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs.
Extension to temporary non-residence rules: Currently the temporary non-UK resident anti-avoidance provisions do not apply where there is a dividend or distribution from post departure trade profits to the individual in a non-UK resident year. Where the year of return is 2026/27 or later this will change. The post-departure trade profits legislative provisions are to be removed. This means that an individual who returns to the UK, without more than five complete tax years of non-UK residence, will be taxed on all distributions/dividends they receive in the years of non-residence from: (i) UK resident close companies; and (ii) non-UK resident companies that would be close if UK resident where:
• they held the shares prior to departure; and
• they are either (a) a material participator in the company or (b) an associate of a material participator in the company.
Specific legislation will allow for relief in respect of any foreign tax paid.
Remittance basis: Specific technical amendments (to ensure that the legislation operates as intended) are to be made to the FA 2025 legislation that removed the remittance basis from 2025/26 onwards and introduced the residence-based tax system. There is no specific detail as yet, but it has been announced that there will be further developments to bolster tax incentives for high talent new arrivals. This appears to mean making changes to the current four-year FIG and foreign employment earnings regimes.
Offshore anti-avoidance legislation: The Budget documentation refers to the Government’s commitment to substantially simplify the offshore structure anti-avoidance provisions (such as the CGT attribution provisions and the transfer of assets abroad legislation). The Government has pledged to proactively engage with representative bodies and stakeholders in this regard. It seems unlikely that there will be any significant changes here before 2027/28.
Property: The tax burden on holding UK property will increase. A new separate tax rate is being introduced for property income which will be taxed at 22/42/47%, so at a higher income tax rate than any other income (relief for finance charges will continue to be restricted). In addition, the Budget introduced a high value council tax surcharge (HVCTS) to be introduced from 2028/29 with respect to properties valued at over £2m. Like ATED borrowing is not deducted and there are different rates depending on the value of the property. For 2028/29, the lowest rate is £2,500 for property worth between £2m and £2.5m with the highest charge being £7,500 for £5m plus properties. There will be specific provisions applying to properties held within structures. Specific reference is made to relief for those who are required to live in the property as a condition of their job.
Lynnette Bober, Director, Joseph Hage Aaronson & Bremen
.jpg)
