Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes

The rules on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS, and their indirect tax equivalent, disclosure of tax avoidance schemes for VAT and other indirect taxes (DASVOIT)) oblige tax advisers, or sometimes the taxpayer, to inform HMRC about certain arrangements avoiding UK taxes. Further rules require the mandatory disclosure of certain cross-border arrangements to avoid obligations to report information on financial accounts and beneficial ownership. Initially these rules were contained in legislation implementing the EU directive known as DAC 6, but these were replaced with legislation to implement the OECD Mandatory Disclosure Rules (MDR).

Making a disclosure has no bearing on whether the arrangements have their intended tax outcome. This means, for instance, that if a scheme is legally effective (from the taxpayer's point of view), HMRC will have to legislate to stop it. There is no obligation on HMRC to comment on the effectiveness of a disclosed scheme.

The intention of the disclosure rules is to enable HMRC to find out about tax avoidance schemes as early as possible. Otherwise HMRC may only find out about the scheme on the submission of a tax return, which

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Tax News

FTT holds that sales of occupation income provisions applied to capital sum received by the taxpayer (Rupert Grint v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Rupert Grint v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found that the sales of occupation income anti-avoidance rules applied to a capital sum received by the taxpayer on the incorporation of his business. The anti-avoidance provisions were engaged as, although there were commercial reasons for the incorporation, one of the main objects of the arrangements was the avoidance or a reduction in income tax. The FTT also held that the closure notice was validly issued despite referring to the wrong legislative provision.

FTT holds discrimination settlement payment not taxable (L v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In L v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the part of a settlement payment which related to a discrimination claim fell outside the scope of income tax. This was on the basis that the payment was not ‘from employment’; instead it was made because the discrimination had deprived the former employee of the opportunity to perform her full role, causing financial loss.

FTT allows taxpayer’s R&D appeal (Stage One Creative Services Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Stage One Creative Services Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that it was entitled to research and development (R&D) relief under the pre-1 April 2024 regime for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

UT considers taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity and third party disclosure request (HMRC v The Taxpayer and Others)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected a taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity, following the taxpayer's decision to withdraw their substantive appeal with the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The UT further granted a third party limited access to the FTT’s previous case management decision. The UT’s decision emphasises the importance placed on open justice and highlights the court and tribunals’ reluctance to permit anonymity in litigation. Written by Helen McGhee, Partner, and Megan Durnford, Associate, at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP.