Joint ventures and tax

A joint venture (JV) is a commercial arrangement entered into by two or more independent parties (referred to throughout as joint venture parties) in order to do something specific, eg to develop and market a new product, where the two (or more) parties can achieve their aim better together than separately, eg one has the research and development expertise and the other has the manufacturing expertise.

There are no specific laws, including tax laws, applicable to joint ventures and there is no technical legal meaning of the term.

The parties have a choice whether to establish their joint venture as:

•
a contractual joint venture
•
a joint venture partnership, or
•
a joint venture company

The tax issues that arise in establishing, operating and terminating such a joint venture will have an impact on the choice between these types of vehicles, for which see Practice Note: Tax influences on choice of joint venture vehicle. Commercial issues will also be very important, for which see: Joint ventures for construction lawyers—overview.

This topic is concerned only with joint ventures formed between corporate entities

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

Autumn Budget 2024—Tackling tax non-compliance in the umbrella company market

Tax analysis: At the Autumn Budget 2024 on 30 October 2024, it was announced there would be changes regarding who is responsible for pay as you earn/National Insurance contributions (PAYE/NIC) when workers are paid through an umbrella company. Robert Woodward, tax associate director and John Chaplin, partner at BDO analyse the changes.

Tax weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) the Supreme Court decision in Refinitiv concerning the interaction between the diverted profits tax and an advance pricing agreement, and (2) the Supreme Court decision in Cobalt Data Centre on the scope of the enterprise zone allowance.

UT finds FTT made errors when setting aside HMRC best judgment assessment (HMRC v Sintra Global)

Tax analysis: In Sintra Global, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) insofar as it related to a notice HMRC had issued to an individual making him liable for the payment of a civil evasion penalty charged against a company he was a director of. The UT found that the FTT had failed to follow the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Pegasus Birds in relation to the assessment the penalty was based on.

Supreme Court rules on the scope and limitations of the enterprise zone tax incentive (R (oao Cobalt Data Centre) v HMRC)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the taxpayers’ argument that the relevant expenditure fell within section 298(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (CAA 2001) and concluded that, based on the proper interpretation of that provision, the expenditure was not incurred under a contract executed prior to the conclusion of the initial ten-year period, as required. Adam Craggs, partner at RPC, discusses the implications that the judgment has on taxpayers going forward.