Tax Considerations – Moving to the UK

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Pre-UK Tax Residence Planning

Individuals and families intending to relocate to the UK should ensure they undertake pre-arrival tax planning in advance of a move, so that their affairs are arranged as efficiently as possible for UK tax purposes.

Such planning should be carried out in the UK tax year before arrival (i.e. before 6 April in the year of relocation).

Individuals moving to the UK will need advice about becoming UK tax resident and the potential UK tax consequences for their personal income and capital gains worldwide, as well as for any non-UK operating businesses or offshore trusts over which they exert a degree of control or influence or (in the case of trusts) of which they are beneficiaries. Such advice is crucial to identifying appropriate planning and structuring that may be implemented before individuals arrive in the UK to mitigate adverse tax consequences.


Click here to download our briefing on Tax Considerations when moving to the UK in PDF format


Becoming UK Tax Resident

Tax residence is determined under the Statutory Residence Test, which combines tests of presence in, and connections with, the UK. An individual who is present in the UK for 183 days or more in the tax year (which runs from 6 April to 5 April each year) will always be UK resident. The default position is that an individual who is tax resident in the UK will be subject to UK income tax and Capital Gains Tax (“CGT”) on their worldwide income and gains as they are generated (known as “the arising basis”).

Remittance Basis

Non-UK domiciled individuals who become UK resident may elect for the “remittance basis” to apply instead. Individuals taxed on the remittance basis are:

  • Liable to UK income tax and CGT on their UK source income and gains realised on UK assets
  • Only taxed on non-UK source income and gains realised on non-UK assets if these funds (or property deriving from them) are “remitted” to (i.e. brought to) the UK
  • Able to bring “clean capital” (e.g. gifts, inheritances, income and gains generated prior to becoming UK resident) to the UK without incurring a tax charge

The remittance rules are complex, and the definition of what constitutes a remittance is extremely wide.

Non-UK domiciled individuals should create segregated offshore accounts, separating clean capital and post-UK residence non-UK income and capital gains for remittance planning purposes.

Remittance Basis Charge (‘RBC’)

Claiming the remittance basis is free for the first seven years of UK residence. Thereafter:

  • For individuals who have been resident in the UK in at least 7 of the preceding 9 tax years, there is an annual charge of £30,000 to claim the benefit of the remittance basis
  • The RBC increases to £60,000 per year for individuals who have been resident in the UK in 12 of the preceding 14 tax years

Domicile

In the UK, the concept of “domicile” (broadly speaking) denotes the jurisdiction with which an individual is most closely connected and is often said to be the country which they consider to be their permanent home, or where they intend to end their days. Whereas an individual may be tax resident in more than one jurisdiction at any given time, an individual is only capable of having one domicile.

It is likely that an individual moving to the UK for the first time will be non-UK domiciled, and (if that is the case) should remain non-UK domiciled provided they do not form an intention to remain in the UK permanently or indefinitely.

Deemed Domicile

A person who is not otherwise domiciled in the UK will be treated as deemed domiciled in the UK once they have been UK resident for at least 15 of the 20 tax years immediately preceding the relevant tax year. Consequently, a non-UK domiciled individual will become deemed domiciled for all UK tax purposes from the start of their sixteenth year of UK residence, from which time they will no longer be eligible to claim the remittance basis of taxation.

Conclusion

The above guide provides a high-level overview of some of the key UK tax rules that need to be considered in advance of moving to the UK. If only one thing is clear it’s that the UK tax system is complicated and navigating the rules will be unique for each person’s individual circumstances. Therefore, it is vital that individuals looking to move to the UK, obtain advice on the UK tax rules at as early a stage as possible and, where relevant, put in place robust and appropriate pre-arrival structuring and planning.

If you have a questions in relation to any of the matters raised in our briefing, or for further information on the subject, please contact a member of our team.


Non-dom rules to be replaced with four-year temporary residence regime

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, has announced that the government will abolish the current tax regime for individuals who are UK resident but not UK domiciled in favour of a residency-based system, which will apply from 6 April 2025.

Non-dom rules to be replaced


Moving to the UK – Everything you need to know

Moving to the UK is an exciting life event whether it be a short-term move for work to explore business prospects or a more permanent relocation with the whole family; the UK offers an eclectic range of options to live, work and learn, from the cityscapes of London to vineyards in the English countryside and historic university towns in-between. Setting up life in a new country can feel daunting too and it can be difficult to know where to start.

Moving to the UK


Patricia Boon
Author

Patricia Boon

View profile

Crypto-Asset Nudge Letters: a cause for concern?

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

In November 2021 HMRC will begin sending ‘nudge letters’ to UK domiciled individuals they have identified as holding crypto-assets to encourage them to ensure they have paid the correct amount of income tax and capital gains tax (CGT) on any income they have received from their crypto-asset holdings. At present, HMRC will not send nudges to resident non-domiciles however their gains will still be subject to CGT.

Nudge letters should not be ignored and early open communication and co-operation with HMRC is advised to avoid any potential civil or criminal penalties.

The nudge letters arrive amidst a rapidly changing crypto eco-system and there are many ways in which a crypto-asset investor may unknowingly make a taxable disposition. The onset of Decentralised Finance (DeFi) has further complicated an already complex sector.

A nudge letter need not necessarily be a cause for concern but it should be an opportunity to take expert advice on the potential tax liabilities affecting an investor’s crypto-asset holdings.

I have been sent a nudge letter, am I required to act?

HMRC typically sends nudge letters when it has grounds to suspect that an individual’s tax affairs are not presently in order. They are not always a mere ‘fishing expedition’.

HMRC may take further action against a nudged individual if they do not respond within a proscribed period, usually 60 days from receipt of the letter. Open, early communication and full co-operation is essential to minimise the risk of civil or criminal sanctions being imposed.

The current landscape for crypto-assets is far from user friendly at present and there are numerous ways in which an individual may be unknowingly triggering UK tax liabilities. For example, should a UK resident non-domiciled individual personally purchase crypto-assets using unremitted foreign income or gains they could be deemed to have remitted the funds to the UK and be taxed on the purchase accordingly.

DeFi presents further potential pitfalls for crypto-asset investors with a lack of certainty of how different applications will be taxed. Broadly, the wide range of potential DeFi profits are subject to income tax on staking and other DeFi activities. However, there is also concern that clients may trigger CGT disposals if staking and other activities involve crypto-to-crypto disposals (such as may occur when a token, or pair of tokens, is staked in exchange for Liquiity Pool tokens). Expert advice should be sought on these issues, which vary depending on the DeFi application being used. The vast majority of DeFi activities, such as yield farming, whereby investors lock up their crypto-assets in exchange for interest or other rewards, are not accounted for in HMRC’s guidance and careful analysis is required on their tax treatment.

How can HMRC identify my crypto-asset holdings?

The nudge letters form part of a wider trend of increased data gathering by HMRC due to the suspected increase in hidden wealth generated through crypto-assets and left undeclared for tax purposes as investors mistakenly believe that they cannot be traced by HMRC.

HMRC is empowered by legislation and through international treaties to gather information from crypto-asset exchanges and data holders about their customers’ transactions in and holdings of crypto-assets both in the UK and abroad. This includes personal data in the form of names and addresses, the value of crypto-asset holdings and trading frequency. This data can be collected from both one time and recurring customers. HMRC has requested and received bulk user data from exchanges from 2017 onwards.

Conclusion

It is clear that HMRC will continue to step up its data gathering activities and crypto-asset investors will come under increased regulatory scrutiny in the near future. The proposed incorporation of crypto-assets within existing automatic information exchange initiatives under DAC 8 will further progress this agenda. Investors must carefully manage their crypto-asset portfolios to ensure their holdings are not incurring unintended tax liabilities and should take expert advice to ensure they are structured as efficiently as possible.

The Forsters team were very early entrants into the crypto advisory market, and have been advising some private clients for over five years. Forsters is ideally placed to advise clients on the full scope of crypto issues, including the management and taxation of crypto-assets.

James Brockhurst is a Senior Associate in our Private Client team and Cameron Turnbull is a Trainee Solicitor.

A Great British Welcome to Asset Holding Companies? – an update on the new tax regime

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

The government is keen to encourage funds to be set up in the UK, rather than, for example, Luxembourg. With this aim in mind, HM Treasury has been consulting with the British Property Federation (the BPF) and other relevant organisations to devise a regime that will be attractive to private equity funds, real estate funds and debt funds, so encouraging them to either set up in the UK or move existing funds to the UK.

We reported over the Summer that limited draft legislation to implement a new asset holding companies regime had been published (see our article here) with more to follow. Much more detailed legislation has now been included in the Finance Bill 2021-22. It is intended that the revised legislation and guidance will be in place by April 2022 and that funds can join the regime from that time.

In order to fall within the new regime, qualifying asset holding companies (QAHCs) must be at least 70% owned by diversely owned funds or by specific types of institutional investors. In such cases, the aim of the regime is that investors in overseas property, certain shares and interests in unit trusts should be treated, so far as possible, as if they held the underlying investments direct. It should be noted that the beneficial tax treatment will not, however, apply to holdings of UK property.

In order to achieve the favourable tax treatment for overseas property, shares and intermediate holding companies, a number of the provisions that would normally apply within the tax legislation will be amended so far as QAHCs are concerned. In particular:

  • gains on disposals of certain shares and overseas property by QAHCs will be exempt
  • profits of an overseas property business of a QAHC will be exempt where those profits are subject to tax in an overseas jurisdiction
  • certain interest payments that would usually be disallowed as distributions will be deductible, so that profit participating loans can be put in place within the structure
  • the late paid interest rules, which can apply in some situations, will be switched off, so that interest payments will be relieved in a QAHC on an accruals basis, rather than the paid basis
  • interest payments made by a normal company would, potentially, be subject to withholding tax, but the new regime will disapply the obligation to deduct income tax at the basic rate on payments of interest where those payments are made to investors in a QAHC
  • if a QAHC repurchases its share capital from an individual, the premium paid will be able to be treated as a capital, rather than an income, distribution
  • repurchases by a QAHC of share and loan capital which it had previously issued will be exempt from stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax
  • certain amounts paid to qualifying remittance basis users will be treated as non-UK source, reflecting the underlying mix of UK and overseas income and gains.

The current draft legislation now deals with the rules for entry into, and exit out of, the regime. In particular, assets will be treated as having been disposed of and re-acquired at market value on entry into the regime. This could give rise to tax liabilities although relief may be available under the substantial shareholding exemption provisions. In addition, the entry charge does not apply, subject to time limits, to non-resident companies which migrate to the UK specifically to join the regime.

HM Treasury has reacted positively to representations put to them by the BPF and others and have taken many points into account in the draft legislation. The introduction of the QAHCs regime and changes already being made (and proposed) to the REITs rules should make the UK a much more attractive base for the establishment of funds.

Heather is a Partner in our Corporate team.

Disclaimer

This note reflects our opinion and views as of 24 November 2021 and is a general summary of the legal position in England and Wales. It does not constitute legal advice.

Heather Corben
Author

Heather Corben

View profile

Forsters’ Family team named Family Law Firm of the Year (London)

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

At a prestigious ceremony attended by hundreds of family lawyers and guests in Central London on Wednesday 24 November, Forsters’ market-leading Family team were crowned ‘Family Law Firm of the Year (London)’ for the second time in five years.

On the news, Head of Family, Jo Edwards, commented: “We are absolutely thrilled to have won this award again. This is the leading awards night in the industry calendar and to receive such recognition from our peers means the world to us. The last five years have seen significant growth in Forsters’ Family team, including the joining of three industry-acclaimed Partners, and the addition of talented Associates, through a combination of lateral hires and growth and nurturing within. To have won this award twice in five years is testament to the hard work of a wonderfully diverse but close-knit team of lawyers”.

The judges commented: “The winners of this award are considered to be heavyweights in fields of complex family law with high profile cases, as well as being experts in critical niche areas, such as surrogacy, adoption, Jewish faith, Islamic divorce, LGBTQ+ and modern families. Their vast list of pro bono work is also hugely impressive, as is their commitment to a partner-led, nurturing approach to career development”.

The Forsters' Family team pick up their Law Firm of the Year trophy.

The recognition follows an already successful year for the team, including a record number of listings in Spear’s Family Law Index 2021; an uplift to Tier 1 in ePrivateClient’s Top Family Law Firms ranking; Jo Edwards‘ inclusion in the ‘Spotlight Table’ of the Family/Matrimonial: Mediators list in the Chambers HNW Guide; Rosie Schumm‘s elevation by a band in the same guide; and market recognition of other partners, Simon Blain and Matthew Brunsdon Tully. Above all, it recognises the team’s unrivalled ability to deliver quality legal advice to clients and the support they have provided to families during what has been a particularly challenging time.

The Family Law Awards recognises the important work of family lawyers and celebrates their many successes and outstanding achievements over the previous 12 months.

A list of all of the winners on the night can be found here.

Family Law Awards - Family Law Firm of The Year (London) 2021 Logo


Breaking Good – Rethinking Separation and Divorce

Introducing Breaking Good, the new Forsters’ podcast. Comedian Marcus Brigstocke teams up with leading family lawyer Jo Edwards and members of Forsters’ Family team to demystify the divorce and separation process. An informative and entertaining guide to modern family law.

Breaking Good - Rethinking Separation and Divorce podcast graphic


Forward-Thinking Approaches to Divorce and Separation

Coming to a decision to separate or divorce is difficult and often distressing. For many, the process that lies ahead is a mystery and it is assumed that it will be confrontational and drawn-out. However, there is in fact a wide range of forward-thinking, constructive approaches to resolving the issues flowing from your divorce or separation.

Forward Thinking Approaches to Divorce and Separation

Non-Compete: What is Reasonable?

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Much like London buses, the Supreme Court must be thinking that restraint of trade cases are coming along all at once. In what was their third restraint of trade case in three years, the Supreme Court has recently handed down its decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd* finding that a restraint of trade clause contained in a non-disclosure agreement between two law firms was not unreasonable in the circumstances and was, therefore, valid. In coming to its decision, the Supreme Court seemingly added further credence to the move away from strict contractual interpretation and towards a focus on the “factual matrix”.

Takeaways

The case serves as a useful reminder of the rules surrounding non-compete clauses and that they can be tricky to get right, demonstrating the importance of such clauses being narrowly drafted and not overly restrictive.

  • If you are entering into a contract where a non-compete is necessary, take care to ensure the boundaries of the clause are clear. What exactly is being prohibited? Make sure that the non-compete clause is not too open-ended.
  • If the contract is likely to run for any length of time, make sure that you periodically review the non-compete clause to check that it is still of relevance and does not require any updating.
  • Always keep a written record of any negotiations when entering into a non-compete; it could be useful in the event of a dispute.
  • Remember too that the bargaining position of the parties may affect a court’s decision as to whether a non-compete clause is reasonable or not. In the case of a B2B contract or a contract between experienced businesses where the bargaining power is fairly equal, a non-compete clause is more likely to be considered as reasonable, but if there is a discrepancy between the parties’ bargaining power, then a court may be less willing to uphold the provision.

When considering your non-compete clause do not forget the golden rules:

  • Ensure there is a legitimate reason for its inclusion. If there is no reason, it probably doesn’t need to be in there.
  • Make sure the length of time the non-compete is due to run is reasonable.

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, always remember there is no substitute for legal advice if you are thinking about requesting, or agreeing to, the inclusion of a non-compete clause.

The Facts

On the back of the Volkswagen emissions scandal, Your Lawyers Ltd (“Your Lawyers“) identified the probability of a large group action case against Volkswagen. Being a small firm, Your Lawyers sought to form an alliance with the larger firm of Harcus Sinclair LLP (“Harcus Sinclair“) and, as a result, the two entered into a non-disclosure agreement (the “NDA“) in respect of information to be provided by Your Lawyers to Harcus Sinclair in connection with the group action. Crucially, the NDA made no mention of the intended collaboration between the parties, but it did contain a non-compete clause that sought to prevent Harcus Sinclair accepting instructions to act “for any other group of claimants in the contemplated group action” without Your Lawyers’ consent for a period of six years. In essence, the clause sought to protect Your Lawyers’ position by preventing Harcus Sinclair from setting up its own group of claimants against Volkswagen which would be in competition with the Your Lawyers’ group of claimants.

The problem arose later down the line, when Harcus Sinclair eventually did establish a separate group of claimants under the group action. In response, Your Lawyers brought a claim against Harcus Sinclair, arguing that they were prohibited from so acting because of the non-compete clause.

The Judgment

The High Court found that the non-compete clause was enforceable and granted Your Lawyers an injunction that required Harcus Sinclair to cease acting in the group action for six years. This decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal which held the non-compete clause to be unenforceable as an “unreasonable restraint of trade”.

Your Lawyers then appealed to the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the non-compete clause was enforceable. In coming to its conclusion, the Supreme Court set out the two principles to be considered in deciding whether a restraint of trade clause is reasonable:

1. The person seeking the benefit of the non-compete clause (i.e. Your Lawyers) must establish that the clause is reasonable as between the parties by showing that the clause:

  • protects their legitimate interests;
  • goes no further than is reasonably necessary to protect their legitimate interests; and
  • is commensurate with the benefits secured to the other party (i.e. Harcus Sinclair) under the contract.

2. If the person seeking the benefit of the non-compete clause is successful in the above, it is then up to the other party to establish that the restraint of trade goes against the public interest.

Importantly for Your Lawyers, the Court considered whether, in determining the legitimacy of their interests, they could take into account the parties’ “intentions or what they contemplated would occur as a consequence of entering into the contract” (in this case, the intended collaboration) as well as the express terms of the contract. Concluding that they should take into account the parties’ intentions, the Supreme Court found that the judge at first instance had been entitled to decide that “Your Lawyers did indeed have legitimate interests, flowing from the intended informal collaboration, which it was protecting by the non-compete undertaking”. It is likely that if only the express contractual terms had been taken into account, Harcus Sinclair would have been the party walking away with a smile on their face.

The next question was whether the clause was reasonably necessary to protect Your Lawyers’ legitimate interests. Although six years would generally be considered a lengthy period for a restraint of trade clause to last, the Court recognised that in these circumstances it was reasonable as it roughly mirrored the limitation period for claims in the emissions litigation. In addition, the restriction only existed in relation to the Volkswagen litigation; it did not affect Harcus Sinclair’s wider business. As such, the clause did not go beyond what was necessary to protect Your Lawyers’ legitimate interests.

In determining whether the restriction was commensurate with the benefits it afforded to Harcus Sinclair, the Court again relied on its findings that the parties’ intentions could be taken into account rather than just the express contractual terms, i.e. the benefits to Harcus Sinclair included those which were intended or contemplated as a result of the informal collaboration. On this basis, the restriction was commensurate with the benefits.

Finally, the Supreme Court held that enforcing the non-compete clause would not be contrary to the public interest for various reasons, including that there were many other law firms able to act for other claimants in the group action; prohibiting Harcus Sinclair from doing so would not significantly affect the public’s access to justice.

Thoughts

Although this case was very fact-specific, taking into account the parties’ intentions could lead to potential disagreement. Most non-compete clauses do not detail the parties’ intentions and in some cases adding in such intentions would not be possible. Take, for example, the situation where a non-compete clause is included in a confidentiality agreement entered into at the very start of negotiations when the parties’ plans may not be clear.

It will certainly be interesting to see the effects of the decision in the future.

Disclaimer

This note reflects our opinion and views as of 17 November 2021 and is a general summary of the legal position in England and Wales. It does not constitute legal advice.

*Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32

British Legal Awards 2021: Forsters’ Property Team Wins Property Team of the Year

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

We are delighted that Forsters’ top ranked property teams have been recognised in Legal Week’s British Legal Awards 2021.

Head of Commercial Real Estate, Andrew Crabbie, commented: “We are thrilled to be taking home this award having been shortlisted for the last two years. Forsters is, and will always remain, a firm with property at the centre of its practice so it is pleasing to receive this impartial recognition of the team’s work.”

Forsters accept their award for 'Property Team of the Year at the British Legal Awards 2021.

Partner Katherine Ekers, who has been instrumental in managing the St. Giles Circus Development, which featured in our award submission, commented: “I am delighted to see our Commercial Real Estate team recognised for our work in advising Consolidated Developments on the redevelopment of St. Giles Circus which is the result of four years’ work involving a team of 15 lawyers across various practice areas and is an indicative matter to the size and complexity we regularly handle. The whole team will share in this award but special thanks to Andrew himself who worked alongside me on this matter and Matthew Evans, Emily Holdstock, Simon Collins and Naomi Trinh, Partners and Counsel across our Planning, Construction, Real Estate Finance and Corporate teams who have been involved in the ongoing work for Consolidated Developments.”

The British Legal Awards, hosted by Law.com International, are recognised as the premier legal awards in the UK, representing the best of the best within the legal community.

Property Team of the Year Logo

Lucy Barber quoted in the Daily Mail on buying a freehold

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Head of Residential Property, Lucy Barber, has contributed to an article for the Daily Mail entitled ‘Buying a Freehold?’.

In the article, Lucy outlines the key steps that leaseholders need to follow in order to complete a freehold transfer.

She highlights the two options available, utilising steps under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 or enfranchisement under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

The former option allows tenants to collectively join together and require the landlord to sell them the freehold, subject to the building satisfying the qualifying criteria under the 1993 Act

The latter option is used when a landlord wishes to sell the freehold of a building containing two or more residential flats and the building fulfils the criteria set out under the 1987 Act.

The landlord first has to serve a Section 5 notice upon all the residential tenants offering them the opportunity to purchase the freehold at a price outlined in the notice. The tenants can accept the notice provided that more than 50 per cent of the qualifying tenants all join together and accept the notice.

The full article can be read here.

A woman with long, dark hair is smiling warmly, wearing a white top and necklace, in a softly lit indoor setting.
Author

Lucy Barber

View profile

Caroline Harbord comments on Lloyd V Google Supreme Court Judgment

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Caroline Harbord, Senior Associate in our Dispute Resolution team, has commented on The Supreme Court’s halt of a massive class action against Google over a data protection breach.

Caroline’s comments on the judgment in Lloyd V Google were picked up by Edward Fennel’s Legal Diary and New Law Journal.

Commenting on the judgment, Caroline states that “Large data controllers will no doubt be taking a massive sigh of relief. The judgment narrows the scope for group claims arising from data breaches where no material damage has been caused by the breach.”

“The practical effect of the judgment means the Supreme Court has deprived the affected class (who have had their data stolen and commercialised by Google) of an effective remedy for this wrong, and puts the English courts at odds with the judicial approach taken by the US, Canadian and Australian courts.”

“It is hard not to feel the Supreme Court has been unduly conservative in its approach, and shied away from an opportunity to impose a new check and balance on large scale data controllers.”

Caroline is a Senior Associate on our Dispute Resolution team.

Caroline Harbord
Author

Caroline Harbord

View profile

Forsters has advised Fiera Real Estate UK on £12m acquisition

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Forsters has advised Fiera Real Estate UK on the acquisition of a 6.1 acre site in Loughborough for over £12million.

The property was acquired by Fiera Real Estate Long Income Fund UK (“FRELIF”) by way of a purchase and leaseback to Meggitt Aerospace Ltd for a term of 20 years.

The site provides a total of 98,868 sq ft across four main buildings situated within one mile of junction 23 of the M1. The cities of Nottingham and Leicester, both dominant economic centres for the East Midlands region, are 19 miles north and 13 miles south respectively.

Rupert Sheldon, Head of CORE REIM and Fund Manager of FRELIF, commented, “The acquisition of this property aligns well with the investment parameters of FRELIF being a mission critical facility for the occupier located within the ‘Golden Triangle’ and offering 20 years of inflation-linked secure income. The acquisition helps extend FRELIF’s overweight position to the favoured industrial segment of the market and enhances all of the Fund’s key metrics of long, strong and progressive income. We remain acquisitive across our core mandates, with capital available to deploy into properties that share similar characteristics.”

Commercial Real Estate Partner Helen Streeton and Senior Associate Jade Capper advised on the deal.

A woman with short blonde hair smiles, wearing glasses and a white blouse, adorned with a necklace and earrings. She is indoors, with a blurred light-coloured background.
Author

Helen Streeton

View profile

The Recovery Loan Scheme: Autumn Budget Update

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

October’s Autumn Budget announced some key changes to the terms of the Recovery Loan Scheme.

Recovery Loan Scheme

As we explained in our previous article, The Recovery Loan Scheme: A Summary, the Recovery Loan Scheme (the “Scheme”) has been available since April 2021 for UK businesses which have been adversely affected by COVID-19. The Scheme was initially set to run until 31 December 2021.

Extension of Scheme

In his Autumn Budget on 27 October 2021, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Scheme would be extended for six months, with applications able to be made until 30 June 2022.

Changes to the Scheme

Along with the extension, various other changes to the Scheme will take effect in relation to applications and offers made on or after 1 January 2022. A comparison table of the current terms against the new terms is set out below.

  • The Scheme will only be available to small and medium sized businesses
  • The maximum amount of funding available to any business will be £2 million
  • The government’s guarantee coverage to lenders will be 70%.

We expect that further details about these changes will be published in due course.

Next steps

The changes will not affect those businesses which have already received a loan under the Scheme but if you are considering applying for the Scheme and are a large business or wish to borrow more than £2 million, it would be advisable to complete your application sooner rather than later.

Given that the Scheme was initially meant to end on 31 December 2021, the announcement may well provide an unexpected helpful boost for smaller businesses in the new year. However, given the long-lasting economic effects of the pandemic, those enterprises which will be struggling into 2022 after what has already been a very tough couple of years may not consider the extension of the Scheme to be enough to counterbalance the new restrictions.

Current terms (until 31 December 2021) New terms (effective 1 January 2022)

Scheme ends 31 December 2021

Scheme ends 30 June 2022

Available to most businesses regardless of size

Available to SMEs only

Maximum amount available: £10 million

Maximum amount available: £2 million

Government-backed guarantee to lenders: 80%

Government-backed guarantee to lenders: 70%

Rowena is a Partner in our Banking and Finance team.

Disclaimer

This note provides a general summary of the legal position in England and Wales as at 8 November 2021. It does not constitute legal advice.

A woman with shoulder-length blonde hair looks at the camera with a neutral expression, wearing a blue blouse and black jacket. The background is softly blurred, focusing attention on her.
Author

Rowena Marshall

View profile

How can I minimise tax when buying a UK house from abroad? Lucy Barber answers the Financial Times reader’s question

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Head of Residential Property, Lucy Barber, answers the reader’s question ‘How can I minimise tax when buying a UK house from abroad?’ for the Financial Times.

In her response, Lucy explains the two taxes likely to have the greatest impact are stamp duty land tax (SDLT) and inheritance tax (IHT).

She highlights that while an additional 2 percent surcharge will be payable on SDLT due to the reader’s non-UK residence, if they were to remain in the UK for at least 183 days in the 12-month following the purchase, a refund may be sought.

In regards to IHT, the reader will be liable to pay this at a rate of 40 percent, however Lucy addresses how the amount of IHT payable can be mitigated.

Read the full answer here (behind a paywall).

A woman with long, dark hair is smiling warmly, wearing a white top and necklace, in a softly lit indoor setting.
Author

Lucy Barber

View profile

Emma Gillies to speak at the US/UK Tax Planning conference

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Private Client Partner, Emma Gillies, has been invited to speak at the US/UK Tax Planning, Digital Week Conference.

The conference, held from the 22 – 24 November, is an event dedicated to helping tax and estate planning professionals when advising their US clients with transatlantic interests.

Emma will join Nita Upadhye of NNU Immigration and Laura Zwicker of Greenberg Glusker in a session entitled “Global Mobility through the pandemic”. In the session, they will discuss tax residency as well as experiences and motivators towards relocation.

You can sign up to attend the event here.

A woman with long blonde hair and glasses smiles directly at the camera, seated against a blurred, neutral-toned background, wearing a black top.
Author

Emma Gillies

View profile

Joe Beeston and Nina Gilroy write for CampdenFB on employment law for family businesses

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Employment Counsel, Joe Beeston, and Legal Executive, Nina Gilroy, have authored an article for CampdenFB entitled ‘Get the basics right in family business employment law’.

“Family businesses often grow in an unstructured way, leading to a culture of informality. As a result, basic employment law documents can get overlooked and family members are not issued with employment contracts or subject to formal policies. This can leave the business exposed when issues arise as neither the business nor the family member have a ‘rule book’ to follow”.

In their article, Joe and Nina explain how to avoid clashing interests and deal with difficult situations, as well as highlighting best practice for future planning.

The full article can be read here. If you have any questions on topics raised in the article, or wish to seek further guidance, please do contact Joe and Nina.

Ben Barrison comments on rent arrears and new arbitration code in The Telegraph

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Ben Barrison, Partner in our Property Litigation team, has provided commentary on rent arrears in The Telegraph on the new arbitration code.

Ben stated that “a lot of outstanding rent arrears cases involve situations where landlords have asked for financial information but it has not been provided by tenants.”

The new arbitration code is due to finalised by the Department For Levelling Up in the next few weeks and is intended to reduce the number of cases taken to court between landlords and tenants.

Read the article in full: Struggling retailers face ban on quitting rental sites

You may also be interested in:

A bearded man wearing a navy suit jacket and light blue shirt looks directly at the viewer, with a plain, light-coloured background.
Author

Ben Barrison

View profile

Forsters recognised again in The Times’ Best Law Firms 2022 Listing

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Forsters, one of London’s leading Real Estate and Private Wealth law firms, has been recognised in The Times’ Best Law Firms 2022 listing.

Published on 5 November 2021, the listing recognises the best lawyers for business, public and private-client law across England, Wales and Scotland, as chosen by lawyers.

Forsters is commended for its Real Estate and Private Wealth law capabilities, the firm has been ranked as a ‘Best For’ firm in the area of Landlord and Tenant law. Forsters is also commended for Commercial Property, Family, and Inheritance and Succession.

Forsters’ continued inclusion in The Times Best Law Firms is testament to the firm’s strength and breadth of expertise and solidifies our reputation as a go-to firm for real estate and private wealth advice.

Roberta Harvey to speak at Private Client Global Elite’s Trust and Estates Litigation Forum 2022

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Head of Contentious Trusts and Estates, Roberta Harvey, has been invited to speak at the Trusts and Estate Litigation Forum 2022, hosted by Private Client Global Elite.

The event, which will take place from the 14 -16 March 2022 in Cologne, is a key forum for trust and estate litigators to gather, connect and discuss recent contentious trust proceedings from across the globe.

In her session, Roberta will be joined by Robert Pearce QC of Radcliffe Chambers and Jennifer Emms of Maurice Turnor Gardner, to discuss recent cases in charitable trusts.

Further information about the Private Client Global Elite can be found here.

Roberta Harvey
Author

Roberta Harvey

View profile

Forsters named finalists in four categories at The News on the Block Awards 2021

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Forsters have been shortlisted as finalists in four categories at The News on the Block Awards 2021.

The firm has been shortlisted for:

Property Management Awards (PMAs)

  • Legal Services Provider of the Year

Enfranchisement and Right To Manage Awards (ERMAs)

  • Solicitors Firm of the Year

We are also delighted to announce that Property Litigation Senior Associate, Lucy Zaremba, and Associate, James Carpenter, have been shortlisted as finalists in the following ERMAs categories:

  • Solicitor of the year, Lucy Zaremba
  • Young Professional of the Year, James Carpenter

On the awards, the News on the Block commented:

“We are delighted to announce the shortlist for this year’s NOTB Awards 2021. It is a fantastic achievement to be a finalist, especially this year. After what has been a challenging 18 months for the industry, and the entire country, we didn’t want anyone to miss out this year. Therefore, we decided we would bring both PMAs and ERMAs audiences together for one joint event and celebration to welcome you all back! Our independent judging panel has reviewed all of the entries and the scores are now in. The peer reviewed judging process assures independent quality in the decision making process.”

The award ceremony will take place on 30 November at Old Billingsgate, London. Click here to view the all the finalists.

Learn more about our Enfranchisement services.

Update

Matthew Brunsdon Tully quoted in Eprivateclient on Family Court transparency proposals

Skyscrapers stand prominently against a blue sky with scattered clouds, surrounded by lower buildings. The tall structures feature modern glass facades, creating a skyline in an urban setting.

Family Partner, Matthew Brunsdon Tully, has been quoted in Eprivateclient’s article entitled ‘Family lawyers raise concerns about new transparency proposals‘.

In his comments, Matthew explains that with greater transparency comes a greater need to achieve a balance between allowing the public an enhanced insight into family courts whilst maintaining an individual’s right to privacy.

The full article can be read here, behind the paywall.