Law firm use of service companies faces scrutiny in tax avoidance clampdown
The use of service companies by limited liability partnerships (LLPs) could be outlawed in the UK Government's latest clampdown on tax avoidance. Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the treasury, confirmed the move at the Liberal Democrats' annual conference this week, saying: "We will be closing the loophole that allows partners in partnerships to structure their staff arrangements so that they avoid the correct amount of income tax. It's wrong, it's unfair, and it's got to stop."
September 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM
2 minute read
The use of service companies by limited liability partnerships (LLPs) could be outlawed in the UK Government's latest clampdown on tax avoidance.
Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the treasury, confirmed the move at the Liberal Democrats' annual conference this week, saying: "We will be closing the loophole that allows partners in partnerships to structure their staff arrangements so that they avoid the correct amount of income tax. It's wrong, it's unfair, and it's got to stop."
The Treasury is currently engaged in a consultation on partnership tax, with draft legislation expected in the autumn ahead of the introduction of the new regime for the next financial year. Giles Murphy (pictured), head of professional practices at Smith & Williamson, said that it was likely that any changes to taxation of service companies would be included with that legislation.
The use of service companies by law firms and other professional services firms is widespread, with a typical structure seeing the service company engage employees to sell their services to the law firm LLP at a profit, thus transferring the profit earned away from the LLP and into the company, which is taxed at corporation rates rather than income tax rates.
Colin Ives, professional services partner at BDO, commented: "While the actual amounts of tax involved are not that great, it will affect most law firms as they tend to use service companies. It is a cost saving that they will miss when it is gone."
Murphy added: "The proposals as drafted would create a one-sided adjustment in favour of HMRC, whereby the service company would pay tax as before, but the partnership would not receive a deduction. All firms with service companies will therefore need to review the arrangements promptly."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSimpson Thacher, Kirkland and Latham Maintain Lead in UK Revenue Per Lawyer Rankings
US Firms Rising? The Law Firms with the Largest UK Market Share, 2024
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250