Top firms call on junior partners to up capital contributions as new HMRC rules go live
Leading firms including Hogan Lovells and Eversheds have joined the ranks of those asking salaried partners to increase their capital contributions in response to HM Revenue & Customs' (HMRC) crackdown on the taxation of limited liability partnerships (LLPs)
April 10, 2014 at 07:16 AM
4 minute read
Leading firms including Hogan Lovells and Eversheds have joined the ranks of those asking salaried partners to increase their capital contributions in response to HM Revenue & Customs' (HMRC) crackdown on the taxation of limited liability partnerships (LLPs).
Changes introduced last Sunday (6 April) are designed to clarify the distinction between employees and partners and prevent firms from avoiding national insurance contributions for junior partners who have only small shares in the business. This means that a generation of new and existing salaried or fixed-share partners can be asked to contribute at least 25% of their annual earnings to their firms within three months.
To meet the requirements Hogan Lovells has asked around 65 salaried partners to pay between £60,000 and £100,000 each to meet HMRC's requirements. The firm has said that loans will be available from banks on the same terms as those available to equity members.
Eversheds has called on 164 partners to contribute 25% of their annual earnings to the firm to meet HMRC's threshold requirements by 5 July. The firm is also set to revisit voting rights for its fixed-share partners in the wake of the new rules.
Meanwhile, Stephenson Harwood has confirmed that it has asked its 55 fixed-share partners to increase their capital contributions.
Withers and Ashurst are both increasing the variable element of junior partners' pay that is linked with the firms' performance without requesting additional capital, with the former adjusting arrangements for 25 junior partners. Addleshaw Goddard and Nabarro have also called on their fixed-share partners to inject capital.
While firms cannot use the additional capital for repaying debt, they can use the contributions to help provide working capital for expansion projects, such as office launches or investment in IT, easing the headache for managers trying to balance investment against partner profits.
"Many firms have been undercapitalised, as there is never a good time to ask a partner to put capital in – I would say several have found the excuse they needed through the new rules," says Smith & Williamson's professional practices group chairman, Simon Mabey.
"However, firms must avoid banks that require partners' capital to be used to pay down their overdrafts. Circular arrangements are a problem and are likely to trigger anti-avoidance restrictions."
Several of the largest City firms, including all members of the magic circle (except Slaughter and May, which is not an LLP and is therefore unaffected) say the changes will not have any material effect on them.
At Clifford Chance it is understood that fewer than five of the firm's partners currently fall outside of HMRC's guidelines.
Similarly, Allen & Overy, which had 83 non-full equity partners in its 2012-13 accounts, says it does not need to make changes as "all of its partners share in the firm's profits".
"It is not necessarily a major issue for magic circle firms as typically they are looking at a small and discrete class of partners," observes Mabey. "Most partners, particularly when it comes to the magic circle, already have substantial and sufficient amounts of capital in the firm or the bulk of their profit share is variable."
Other firms stating that the changes will have limited impact on them include Herbert Smith Freehills, while Wragge & Co, where more than 20 non-equity partners will join from LG as part of their merger in May, is also not making any changes.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
The three conditions junior partners must meet at least one of to maintain self-employed status:
1) at least 20% of pay must be dependent on the firm's profits;
2) at least 25% of their fixed pay must be contributed in capital; or
3) demonstrating that they have significant influence on the overall partnership
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 AllTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for Hard-Line Approach to Region
BCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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