HMRC have launched a consultation 'Opportunities to Extend Uncertain Tax Treatment', which seeks opinions on bringing individuals and trusts within the Uncertain Tax Treatment (UTT) regime and extending its scope to include other taxes such as Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Stamp Duty Land Tax.

Consultation
The Uncertain Tax Treatment (UTT) regime was introduced to help reduce the 'tax gap' caused by differences in the legal interpretation applied by a taxpayer in their returns and that of HMRC's published view.
Currently, the rules only apply to large companies and partnerships, but the government is looking to widen the scope and bring individuals and trusts into the regime. Additionally, they are looking to extend the rules to cover several other taxes.
The consultation also seeks feedback on broadening the range of legal interpretation uncertainties that are notifiable.
The areas the government intend to change and seek opinions on are:
- The proposal to bring individuals and trusts within the UTT regime.
- The proposal to include Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT), National Insurance Contributions (NICs), the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS), Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and Inheritance Tax (IHT) within the scope of the regime.
- The current regime covers only Corporation Tax, Income Tax and VAT.
- The wording of proposed additional triggers, which, if met, will require notification of legal interpretation uncertainties.
The aim of broadening the scope is to increase HMRC's ability to identify instances where businesses adopt legal interpretations which differ from HMRC's published view. This helps HMRC identify associated tax risks at an earlier stage.
Legal interpretations can differ when a business applies its own interpretation of the law to a case, and the outcome differs from that of HMRC.
There are various drivers of uncertainties:
- Differences in the interpretation of facts affect whether and how the law is applied.
- Differences in the interpretation of the law, meaning what the law says or means.
- Differences in approaches to valuation, apportionment, calculation or allocation, that affect the quantum of the tax outcome.
Additional taxpayers
The government aims to include 'wealthy' individuals within the UTT regime; however, there is no proposal to define 'wealthy' for UTT purposes. Instead, individual taxpayers will be included where they make a legal interpretation and the resulting tax advantage exceeds £5 million.
- The government believes the £5 million threshold will focus the requirement on the legal uncertainties that are of interest and will not add complexity to defining the population within the scope.
- The current turnover (£200m) and balance sheet thresholds (£2b) will remain for companies and partnerships.
UTT will therefore focus on very large businesses, by examining their turnover and balance sheet, and individuals, who will be identified by the tax advantage.
If any of the triggers are met, a notification would be required at the same time as the relevant Income Tax return is due.
Trusts
It is proposed that trusts within the UTT regime will also be identified by the tax advantage, i.e. where this exceeds £5 million.
- Similarly, they will be required to notify at the same time as the Income Tax return covering the period where the legal interpretation has arisen is due.
- All trusts are expected to be included, regardless of the type of trust.
Additional taxes within the scope
The proposal is to extend the scope of the UTT regime to include the following taxes:
- All classes of National Insurance Contributions.
- Payments made under the Construction Industry Scheme.
- Stamp Duty Land Tax for both residential and non-residential properties.
- Capital Gains Tax.
- Inheritance Tax.
Additional notification requirements
The government intends to add a trigger which will require legal uncertainties to be notified where HMRC's position is not known, and there may be more than one credible interpretation.
- This additional trigger aims to close the tax gap and increase certainty for the taxpayer.
- The government believes this trigger will be effective in identifying the kinds of uncertainties the regime is intended to capture.
Under the current regime, the requirement to notify falls in line with the relevant tax return; if the regime is expanded to include further taxes, this may create a burden for some taxpayers who have to consider multiple taxes.
- The government proposes a single annual UTT notification due date that would be used across all taxes.
Currently, there is an exemption to notify if it is reasonable for the taxpayer that HMRC already has all of the information available to them that would have been included in the notification if it had been required to be given.
- The government intends to tighten this exemption to ensure taxpayers only qualify where HMRC has given confirmation that they are aware of the uncertainty.
Responses to the consultation can be emailed to
Useful guides on this topic
Penalties: Senior Accounting Officers
The Senior Accounting Officer (SAO) of a large company is required under Schedule 46 FA 2009 to ensure the existence of, and report on, the appropriateness of their tax accounting arrangements. Penalties are charged in the event of failures.
External link
Consultation: Opportunities to Extend Uncertain Tax Treatment
Consultation questions
Question 1: Are you responding to this survey as:
- a business
- a representative body
- an organisation
- an individual
- other (please provide details)
Question 2: Are the views offered in your responses:
- your own views
- your organisation’s views
- your members’ views
Question 3: What is your industry sector (such as accounting, finance, software, retail, construction, other)?
Question 4: To help us determine business size, please provide details on:
- number of employees in your business
- annual turnover
Question 5: Please provide any further information about your organisation or business activities that you think might help us put your answers in context.
Question 6: Do you agree that we should focus solely on the ‘tax advantage’ amount to identify legal interpretation uncertainties of interest?
Question 7: Do you agree with how we propose to determine the tax advantage for individuals?
Question 8: Do you agree with including all trusts within scope?
Question 9: Can you foresee any practical issues with including trusts within scope of UTT?
Question 10: Can you foresee any practical issues with including NICs within UTT?
Question 11: Do you agree with proposed due date to notify a NICs legal interpretation uncertainty, or do you prefer a single due date for all UTT notifications (refer section 4.4)?
Question 12: Do you agree with the due date for notification involving CIS deductions to be the last CIS return due in an accounting period, or do you prefer a single due date for all UTT notifications (refer to section 4.4)?
Question 13: Can you foresee any practical issues with including CIS within UTT?
Question 14: Do you agree with the due date for notification involving SDLT to be when a return covering that transaction would otherwise be due, or do you prefer a single due date for all UTT notifications (refer section 4.4)?
Question 15: Can you foresee any practical issues with including SDLT within scope of UTT?
Question 16: Do you agree with the due date for notification involving CGT to be when a return covering that transaction would otherwise be due, or do you prefer a single due date for all UTT notifications (refer section 4.4)?
Question 17: Can you foresee any practical issues with including CGT within scope of UTT?
Question 18: Do you agree with the due date for notification involving IHT to be when the IHT return is due, or do you prefer a single due date for all UTT notifications (refer section 4.4)?
Question 19: Do you foresee any practical issues with including Inheritance Tax within the scope of UTT, particularly regarding the timing difference between when a legal interpretation is made and when notification would be required? If so, how do you think these issues could be overcome?
Question 20: Are there specific scenarios where applying UTT would be inappropriate, duplicative or unnecessary? If so, how could an approach be designed to avoid unnecessary notifications while still capturing relevant legal uncertainties?
Question 21: Do you agree that requiring taxpayers to tell us about legal interpretations where there is more than one credible interpretation and HMRC’s view is not known, will capture the uncertain tax treatments that it is intended to identify?
Question 22: Are there additional triggers that would identify uncertain tax treatments that would not be identified by the proposed trigger, or the existing 2 triggers?
Question 23: In addition to transfer pricing calculations, are there any other uncertainties that should be excluded from the proposed trigger?
Question 24: Do you think that having a single annual notification due date would make it easier for taxpayers to comply with the UTT obligation? If so, what date or timing would you consider most appropriate?
Question 25: Can you foresee any problems with taxpayers obtaining confirmation from HMRC that the notification has been brought to its attention?