Authorised investment funds (AUTs and OEICs)

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to the UK funds regime: The output of the government’s review of the UK funds regime includes proposals to keep the taxation of the long-term asset fund structure (LTAF) under review. See News Analyses: Review of the UK funds regime—an analysis and HM Treasury’s review of the UK funds regime—a call for input.

What are authorised investment funds?

The term ‘authorised investment fund’ (often abbreviated to ‘AIF’) is tax terminology for two types of fund: the authorised unit trust (AUT) and the open-ended investment company (OEIC). AUTs and OEICs are varieties of collective investment scheme that are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The term itself is found in the Authorised Investment Funds (Tax) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/964 which contain the many body of rules for the taxation of AIFs.

The rules for the taxation of AIFs are mainly found in the Authorised Investment Funds (Tax) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/964, which are referred to in this Practice Note as the AIF Regulations.

The different types of AIF

Regulatory forms

From a regulatory perspective, there are four different

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.