Authorised investment funds (AUTs and OEICs)

What are authorised investment funds (AIFs)?

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 ‘AIF’, used to describe them both, is found in the Authorised Investment Funds (Tax) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/964 which contain the main body of rules for the taxation of these types of funds. In this subtopic, those tax regulations are referred to as the ‘AIF Tax Regulations’.

Note that the abbreviation ‘AIF’ used in a tax context (ie to stand for ‘authorised investment fund’) should not be confused with that same abbreviation as used in a regulatory (non-tax) context. In the regulatory (non-tax) context, ‘AIF’ stands for the different concept of the ‘alternative investment fund’.

The legal and regulatory framework

Regulatory forms

From a regulatory perspective, an AIF could be one of four different types of collective investment scheme:

•
undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)
•
non-UCITS

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

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value; the actual consideration paid; or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions; clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies; and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

Finance Bill 2026–Registration of tax advisers

Tax analysis: Legislation proposed by the government in Part 7 of the Finance Bill 2026 will mandate that tax advisers register with HMRC. The registration scheme is designed to address inconsistencies across HMRC’s current services, to ensure minimum standards among advisers and reduce the presence of so-called ‘bad actors’ in the sector. Any individual or organisation offering tax advice, which is defined broadly, must register with HMRC. Failure to register can lead to compliance notices giving an opportunity to register, fines and orders ultimately preventing future registration indefinitely. Exemptions to registration include responding to requests for information from HMRC or interacting with HMRC in relation to an appeal to the tribunal. Written by Gideon Sanitt, a partner in the litigation and dispute resolution team at Macfarlanes LLP, and Joshua Rutt, an associate in the litigation and dispute resolution team at Macfarlanes LLP.

Tax weekly highlights—18 December 2025

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) the Supreme Court judgment dismissing Hotel la Tour’s appeal, (2) the Court of Appeal in Sintra deciding in favour of HMRC on burden of proof in penalty appeals, (3) the Finance Bill 2026 (FB 2026) and the NICs Bill both had their second reading, (4) News Analysis on the new share exchange and reorganisation anti-avoidance measure contained in the Finance Bill 2026 (FB 2026), and (5) News Analysis on the announcement made at Budget 2025 about the oil and gas price mechanism to replace the energy profits levy.

Supreme Court decides VAT on professional fees to assist with sale of subsidiary is not deductible input tax (Hotel La Tour v HMRC)

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal by Hotel La Tour Ltd (HLT) against HMRC, holding that VAT on professional fees incurred to assist with the sale of HLT’s subsidiary is not deductible as input tax. The court concluded that VAT on the fees were ‘directly and immediately linked’ to the VAT exempt sale of shares in its subsidiary rather than to HLT’s taxable general economic activities and therefore was not deductible input tax for VAT purposes. The judgment clarifies the limits of VAT recovery on corporate transactions where companies rely on share disposals to generate capital for new commercial developments. Practitioners observe that this judgment reinforces the restrictive approach to input tax recovery on deal-related costs. As well as summarising the decision, this News Analysis contains commentary from Jivaan Bennett, a barrister at Temple Tax Chambers, on the implications of the judgment.