Labour presses ahead with non-dom abolition

A round stone balances atop a larger sphere beside a beige, hollow ceramic sculpture. The background features a purple and yellow geometric pattern.

In her first budget held on 30 October, the new Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, confirmed that the government will press ahead with the abolition of the non-dom tax regime.

Draft legislation has been published setting out the detail of the new rules, which will apply from 6 April 2025.

The proposals are broadly in line with those announced by the previous government in March. The information released yesterday brings some clarifications, and significant further detail in relation to the reforms to inheritance tax (IHT).

Income and gains – the FIG regime

A new four-year foreign income and gains (FIG) regime will apply from 6 April 2025. Those who qualify for the FIG regime will benefit from a complete exemption from UK tax on their foreign income and gains, whether or not they remit them to the UK. Anyone wishing to avail themselves of the regime will need to declare their global earnings on a tax return that will need to be submitted to the UK tax authority (HMRC).

Eligibility for the new regime

The four-year FIG regime will be available to anyone in their first four years of UK residence, provided they have not been UK resident in the previous 10 years.

This means that those who are already UK resident will only be eligible for the new regime if they became UK resident on or after 6 April 2022 and were non-UK resident in the preceding 10 tax years. Subject to the residence criteria, the four-year FIG regime will be available to UK citizens and UK domiciliaries.

Trusts

The FIG regime will apply to non-UK resident trusts. Settlors who are within the FIG regime will not be taxed on the foreign income and gains of trusts they have created. Beneficiaries will not be taxed on distributions that are matched with income and gains of the trust while they are eligible for the regime.

Exceptions

Those individuals who are not in the FIG regime will be subject to income tax and capital gains tax (CGT) on their worldwide income and gains. Settlors will generally be taxed on the worldwide income and gains of trusts from which they can benefit. Currently, there are exceptions from the automatic attribution of income and gains for those who have funded overseas companies (including companies owned by non-resident trusts) where the avoidance of UK tax was not a reason for creating the structure. These exceptions – the so-called “motive defences” – will continue to apply although the rules of which the motive defences form part will be subject to government review in the course of 2025.

Transitional rules

There are two transitional rules for individuals who were already UK resident:

  • Temporary Repatriation Facility

The Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF) will allow those who have previously been taxed on the remittance basis and who have unremitted income and gains to remit them and pay tax at a reduced rate. The TRF will be available for three years from 6 April 2025 (i.e., until 5 April 2028).

The reduced rates will be as follows:

    • 12% in the 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 tax years; and
    • 15% in the 2027/2028 tax year

The TRF will also apply to unremitted income and gains arising in non-UK resident trusts and non-UK resident companies before 6 April 2025, and also income and gains arising within such a structure that has been attributed to them before this date under the UK’s anti-avoidance rules. In addition, the TRF will cover pre-6 April 2025 income and gains within such structures that have not been attributed to the individual to the extent that the income and gains “matches” to benefits received by the individual during the TRF window. However, the TRF will not be available for distributions of post-6 April 2025 income.

  • Capital gains tax rebasing

This will allow current and past remittance basis users to rebase foreign assets to their market value as at 6 April 2017. This could reduce the chargeable gain if an asset is disposed of on or after 6 April 2025 and the individual is not eligible for the FIG regime.

This CGT rebasing will not be available to individuals who are already UK domiciled or deemed UK domiciled, or become so prior to 6 April 2025.

Inheritance tax

From 6 April 2025, a person will be within the scope of IHT once they have become a ‘long-term resident’ of the UK. Domicile will cease to be relevant. An individual will become liable to IHT on their worldwide assets once they have been UK resident for at least 10 out of the immediately preceding 20 tax years. This will be determined based on the existing residence rules – the statutory residence test (SRT) from the 2013/2014 tax year onwards; and the pre-SRT rules for earlier years.

UK situated assets and non-UK situated assets that derive their value from UK residential property will remain within the scope of IHT, regardless of other factors.

The “tail period”

It had previously been proposed that, once within the scope of worldwide IHT, an individual would remain so for 10 years after ceasing UK residence. That will be the case for an individual who has been UK resident for at least 20 years, but the “tail” period will be reduced where the individual has been UK resident for between 10 and 19 years, on a taper basis. For example, an individual who has been UK resident for 13 out of 20 tax years, will only need three years of non-UK residence to fall outside the scope of IHT.

“Excluded property” trusts

Buried in the budget announcements, there was some limited good news for non-doms with existing “excluded property” trusts. Currently, non-doms who settled non-UK assets into trust are protected from IHT on death. The government had announced previously that this protection would be lost. In response to widespread lobbying, the government has decided that excluded property trusts settled before 30 October 2024 should continue to be exempt from IHT on the death of the settlor.

Non-UK situated property held within a discretionary trust will no longer be excluded property where, and for so long as, the settlor is a long-term resident within the scope of IHT. If the settlor loses their long-term residence status, then the trust can reacquire excluded property status and this will trigger an exit charge for IHT. Settlements that currently have a UK domiciled settlor (under current rules) who will not be a long-term resident (under the new rules) on 6 April 2025, will be facing an unexpected exit charge. Many trusts will be in a situation where the settlor is non-domiciled (under current rules) but will be a long-term resident (under the new rules) and will become subject to the ongoing IHT charging regime with periodic and exit charges.

Commentary

The government has placed growth and wealth creation at the centre of its agenda. It has promoted the FIG regime as “internationally competitive”. The assumption seems to be that those who move to the UK to take advantage of the regime will remain beyond the four-year period and accept UK tax on their worldwide assets thereafter.

The appeal of what is (in effect) a four-year tax haven has drawn speculation. The obligation on those availing themselves of the FIG regime to report their global assets to the UK tax authority may add to the doubt.

The government appears to have heard at least part of the message that has been delivered over recent months. Subjecting existing UK resident non-doms to IHT at 40% on assets settled into trust under the current rules has been widely reported as a deal-breaker for those considering their options. While this was a step too far for many non-doms who were waiting for this clarification, it remains to be seen how those who are left will respond.

Next steps

We will be working closely with our clients and contacts to work out what the detail of the changes will mean to them and to their plans going forward.

Labour presses ahead with non-dom abolition

Download this briefing as a PDF Contact us

Fountain pen

Key takeaways for UK Private Clients – 2024 Autumn Budget

A round stone balances atop a larger sphere beside a beige, hollow ceramic sculpture. The background features a purple and yellow geometric pattern.

There are some finer details yet to be released, but here is a summary of the key takeaways from the 2024 Autumn Budget:

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)

Rates of CGT – immediate changes

Despite rumours of CGT hikes to bring rates in line with income tax, residential property rates for CGT remain at 18% for basic rate taxpayers and 24% for higher and additional rate taxpayers. Non-residential property rates increase from 10% to 18% for basic rate taxpayers, and from 20% to 24% for higher and additional rate taxpayers (including trustees and personal representatives).

Business Asset Disposal Relief – changes from 6th April 2025

The rates for disposals qualifying for Business Asset Disposal Relief will increase from 10% to 14% next April, and from 14% to 18% for disposals after 6th April 2026. See further detail in our briefing here.

Limited Liability Partnership’s (“LLPs”) liquidation – immediate changes

CGT will be triggered on the return of assets to members on the liquidation of an LLP.

Inheritance tax (IHT)

We knew that IHT reliefs were under scrutiny, and there was a lot of speculation about the form any changes would take.

Before going through the changes, it is worth briefly explaining the current position. Broadly speaking, IHT is due on a person’s estate at 40% on the value over and above their IHT nil rate band (NRB) of £325k. It is also possible to claim the residential nil rate band (RNRB) of up to £175k when descendants inherit qualifying residences.

100% relief is available on business and agricultural assets qualifying for Business Property Relief (BPR) or Agricultural Property Relief (APR), with no cap on the value of assets to which the reliefs apply. Those reliefs were designed to ensure that farms and businesses could be kept intact from one generation to the next.

NRB and RNRB thresholds

The existing NRB and RNRB thresholds will be frozen until 2030. (The NRB has not changed since April 2009.)

APR and BPR

From next April, APR will be extended to land managed under an environmental scheme, although the details are yet to be confirmed.

From April 2026, 100% relief will continue to apply to the first £1m of combined APR and BPR assets, with the excess qualifying for 50% relief only. For example, if you own £2m of shares qualifying for BPR, £1m of those shares would attract 100% relief, and the remaining £1m would be subject to IHT of £200k.

There will be a consultation in March 2025 on how the new allowance will affect trusts subject to the so-called relevant property regime (which levies a charge of 6% every ten years on assets held in trust).

Estates will continue to benefit from the NRB, RNRB and other exemptions (e.g. to spouses, charities etc.). However, it has been made clear that if any of the £1m relievable property allowance is not used on death, it cannot (unlike the NRB and RNRB) be transferred to a surviving spouse. Outright gifts will also continue to escape IHT if made at least seven years before death – there had been concerns that Labour would increase the period to ten years.

There is no mention of the uplift on death for CGT purposes, and so it seems that it will continue to apply.

Assets currently qualifying for 50% relief will remain subject to that rate and will not use up any of the £1m allowance, meaning at least that the allowance is not ‘wasted’ on assets qualifying for a lower rate of relief.

Where there is a mixture of assets qualifying for APR and BPR at 100%, the £1m threshold will be divided proportionately. Taking the Government’s example “if there was agricultural property of £3m and business property of £2m, the allowance for the agricultural property and the business property would be £600k and £400k respectively”.

The instalment option can continue to be claimed on APR and BPR assets.

AIM

The rate of BPR on AIM shares will be reduced from 100% to 50%.

Pensions

Currently there is no IHT on unused pensions funds held in discretionary trusts.

From April 2027, IHT relief on pensions will no longer apply, regardless whether or not the unused pension funds are held in a discretionary trust. Pension providers, rather than the deceased’s personal representatives, will be responsible for sending HMRC the funds to pay the IHT on the unused pension.

It appears that recipients of the balance of unused pension funds (after pension providers have paid the IHT) will remain subject to income tax on withdrawals, meaning, in effect, a double tax charge.

IHT return (online filings)

HMRC will introduce a new online digital platform for filing IHT returns and managing payments.

Other

Private schools

As already announced, VAT will be charged on school fees from January 2025. The Government plans to legislate to remove the eligibility of private schools in England to business rates charity relief. It is intended that this will take effect next April.

Interest on late payment of tax

From 6th April 2025, the interest charged by HMRC on unpaid tax liabilities will increase by 1.5% to 4% above the Bank of England’s base rate. This will substantively increase the cost of claiming the instalment option on IHT.

Key takeaways for UK Private Clients

Download this briefing as a PDF Contact us

Fountain pen

An update on corporate and property taxes – Autumn Budget 2024

A white magnolia flower with open petals is positioned against a vibrant yellow background with geometric orange accents.

The Chancellor introduced a number of measures that impact businesses and business owners. The following are some of the key points that may need immediate consideration.

Unusually direct tax and indirect tax measures have been introduced effective from Budget Day.

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)

The main rates of CGT that apply to assets other than residential property and carried interest have changed from 10% and 20% to 18% and 24% respectively, for disposals made on or after 30 October 2024. The rate of CGT that applies to Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) and Investors’ Relief will increase from 10% to 14% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2025, and from 14% to 18% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2026.

Many taxpayers have been racing to exchange contracts before Budget Day and HMRC is aware of this as it is noted in the Budget press releases that the change in rates are accompanied by forestalling rules to apply to: unconditional but uncompleted contracts before 30 October 2024, and for Business Asset Disposal Relief and Investors’ Relief, where a contract is made from 30 October 2024 to 5 April 2026 and completed from 6 April 2025. In such cases disposals will be subject to the new rates of Capital Gains Tax unless:

  • the parties to the contract can demonstrate that they did not enter into the contract with a purpose of obtaining a tax advantage by reason of the timing rule in section 28 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (this provision provides that the date of disposal of an unconditional contract is the date of exchange rather than completion)
  • where the parties to the contract are connected, that the contract was entered into for wholly commercial reasons

Where these apply a statement must also be made where the gain exceeds £100,000.

Action point

Taxpayers will need to be able to demonstrate that there was a commercial reason for the exhanged contract.

Carried Interest

An increase in rates from April 2025 and more radical change from April 2026. For further details read our briefing on Carried Interest.

Action Point

Review the terms of any current arrangements and take advice before entering into new arrangements.

Sale to an employee ownership trust (EOT)

There is a total exemption from CGT where a qualifying disposal is made to an EOT.

Before Budget day there were five broad requirements which may have been summarised as follows:

  1. The trading requirement: most easily satisfied by the target company being a trading company
  2. The all-employee benefit requirement: the EOT must provide that all eligible employees/directors are beneficiaries who benefit on the same terms (subject to objective criteria such as time reserved)
  3. The controlling interest requirement: the EOT must hold more than 50% of the ordinary issued share capital, voting and economic rights in the company
  4. The limited participation requirement – any seller (or persons connected with him) who continues to own 5% or more of the shares in the company should not make up 40% or more of the employees/office holders in the company
  5. The no related disposal requirement – the person claiming relief (and persons connected with him) should not have claimed this relief in respect of the target company (or is group companies) in earlier years

Disposals to EOTs have become a standard method of achieving a tax-free exit and to limit perceived abuse various measures have been introduced and these include the following which have effect for disposals on or after 30 October 2024:

  • to ensure that the principle behind (3), the controlling interest, is not subverted by ensuring that the seller cannot indirectly control the company by controlling the EOT
  • to ensure that the EOT is tax compliant by requiring the trustees to be UK tax resident (particularly relevant as there is a CGT charge for the trustees, if the relief is clawed back)
  • to ensure that only the current market value of the company comes within the exemption and not that anticipated future growth in value of the shares: by requiring that the trustees only pay market value for the shares. Although well advised trustees who have wanted to ensure that they were acting within their fiduciary powers would normally have insisted on an independent market value valuation of the shares
  • the clawback increases from one to four years

Action point

For recent purchasers by EOTs it will be prudent to obtain a valuation report if one had not been commissioned.

Loans to participators – close companies

Generally, if a close company makes a loan to a participator (otherwise than in the ordinary course of a banking business) and that loan is left outstanding 9 months after the end of the accounting period in which that loan was made the company has a tax charge of 33.75% of the amount of the loan. A new targeted anti avoidance rule (TAAR) will be introduced to combat the making of short-term repayments to prevent the tax charge becoming due and payable, very shortly followed by a withdrawal of a ‘new’ loan on similar terms (known as ‘bed and breakfasting’).

Action point

Review all loans made by close companies.

SDLT

From 31 October 2024 the Higher Rates for Additional Dwellings (HRAD) surcharge on Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) will be increased by 2 percentage points from 3% to 5%. Assuming that the non-resident SDLT surcharge doesn’t apply, the top rate of SDLT is now 17%. Despite a manifesto commitment to increase it to 3%, it seems that the non-resident surcharge will remain at 2%.

The flat rate of SDLT that is charged on the purchase of dwellings costing more than £500,000 by corporate bodies will also be increased by 2 percentage points from 15% to 17% (for those companies that cannot claim a business use exemption such as renting to independent third parties). If the contract was exchanged before 31 October 2024, then it will be grandfathered and protected from these new rates provided that:

  • there is no variation of the contract, or assignment of rights under the contract, on or after 31 October 2024
  • the transaction is effected in consequence of the exercise on or after that date of any option, right of pre-emption or similar right, or
  • on or after that date, there is an assignment, subsale or other transaction relating to the whole or part of the subject-matter of the contract as a result of which a person other than the purchaser under the contract becomes entitled to call for a conveyance

Action point

Ensure that no pre-31 October 2024 contracts are taken out of the grandfathering provisions.

Listen to our Instant Insights on SDLT

Tax Partner, Elizabeth Small explains the change to SDLT Tax rates for second homes and what happens if a contract was exchanged on or before 31 October 2024:

Transcript

Barely a Budget ever goes by these days without there being a change to SDLT tax rates and the Autumn 2024 Budget saw no change there. This time the target was not the non-resident SDLT, which had been mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto, but instead the higher rates for additional dwellings, sometimes called the surcharge for second homes.

These rates, with effect from the 31st of October 2024 have now gone up by a further 2%, i.e. from 3% to 5%. This means that taking into account the NRSDLT rate of 2%, that one is now at a top SDLT rate on the most expensive properties of 19%, very close in my mind to the 20% current VAT rate.

If a contract was exchanged on or before the 31st of October 2024, it will be possible to argue that the contract is still only subject to the 3% rate and not the 5% increased rate, but in order to do that, it is absolutely vital that the contract must not be, to use a colloquialism, messed with. In other words, you mustn’t vary that contract, or assign the rights under that contract, and you mustn’t sub-sale the contract, or in any other way make it such that somebody other than the original purchaser becomes entitled to call for a conveyance.

As long as you stay outside those rules, it should be possible for your old contract to be grandfathered and protected from these new rates. Going forwards, whenever you’re looking at a pre 31st of October 2024 contract, it’s going to be very important to understand that this contract has not been altered, varied or subsold.

An update on corporate and property taxes

Download this briefing as a PDF Contact us

Fountain pen

An update on carried interest – Autumn Budget 2024

A white magnolia flower with open petals is positioned against a vibrant yellow background with geometric orange accents.

The headlines

Holders of carried interest will be relieved that in the Budget it has been announced that the rate of CGT applying to carried interest (as it arises) will increase from 28% to 32% but not immediately; only on or after 6 April 2025. The decision not to impose an even higher rate will have been influenced by the extensive lobbying which has been taking place to persuade the Government that, if that were to be done, private equity managers would move to favourable jurisdictions such as France, Italy and the Middle East.

However, this 32% rate will only remain in place until the Government has implemented a wider reform package in April 2026. The Government had already sought views on how carried interest should be taxed and this call for evidence closed on 30 August 2024.

Now a Budget document has been published which sets out Government thinking, and they will be consulting further on this until 31 January 2025.

The new proposal

The proposal is that a revised carried interest tax regime will apply which will sit wholly within the income tax (rather than the CGT) regime. Carried interest will be treated as trading profits, subject to income tax and Class 4 NICs. The amount of “qualifying” carried interest (explained further below) subject to tax will be adjusted by applying a 72.5% multiplier.

The tax charge applying under the new carried interest regime will be an exclusive charge. Under the existing regime, carried interest has been taxed according to the nature of the relevant amount coming up from the underlying fund/ its assets. So, for example, amounts representing interest income would have been taxed as interest income; under the proposed regime all amounts will be taxed as deemed trading income.

IBCI

Income Based Carried Interest (IBCI) is already taxed as income, but the IBCI regime has not applied to employment related securities so employees/ directors who have made what is known as section 431 elections have been able to keep outside the IBCI regime. The Government now proposes that the IBCI rules will be amended so that employment related securities are not excluded from it. This will be a significant change as, previously, the IBCI regime has distinguished between the self- employed and the employed.

Carried Interest within the IBCI regime will not be “qualifying” carried interest. The Government is also now going to consult as to what other conditions need to be satisfied to fall within the “qualifying” category. In particular, there may be a minimum co-investment requirement and/ or a minimum time period between a carried interest award and receipt. These new conditions to determine whether carried interest is “qualifying” will be added to the existing IBCI legislation.

DIMF

The existing Disguised Investment Management Fee (DIMF) rules will remain in place.

Non–residents and carried interest

The deemed trade under the revised regime will be treated as carried on in the UK to the extent that the investment management services in relation to which the carried interest arose were performed in the UK, and outside the UK to the extent that the investment management services were performed outside the UK. As a result, non-UK residents will be subject to income tax on carried interest to the extent that it relates to services performed in the UK (subject to the terms of any applicable double tax agreement). This is the same as the approach in the DIMF rules.

What now?

Draft legislation is going to be published during 2025. In the meantime, we and other interested stakeholders will be working to seek to ensure that the proposals put forward by the Government can be implemented in a way which does not result in those involved in the fund management industry leaving the UK for another jurisdiction which they regard as having more favourable rules.

Listen to our Instant Insights on carried interest

Tax Partner, Elizabeth Small explains the changes to how carried interest will be taxed:

Transcript

One of the most eagerly anticipated parts of the Budget speech from the chancellor was in respect of carried interest. A vexed topic of conversation for chancellors over many, many years, perhaps even decades. Famously a beneficiary of carried interest in the private equity market, had said that he paid an effective tax rate of less than his cleaner. That had been changed over the years and current rate of taxation of carried interest is 28%.

Currently, carried interest is subject to the capital gains tax regime and with the concerns regarding the taxation and change of rate of CGT, there was a concern that carried interest would have moved up to an income tax rate of say 45%, which would have been at variance with other jurisdictions which treat carried interest as capital and at a rate of around 30%.

What the Chancellor has announced is that with effect, for carry being cashed in on or after the 6th of April 2025 that the rate will increase from 28% to 32%, but for carry that is cashed in after the 6th of April 2026 that there will have been a whole scale alteration of the carried interest regime, with the potential that carried interest will be treated as trading profits, subject to income tax and Class 4 NICs.

This will apply to qualifying carried interest. What that term means will be debated and explored between now and April 2026, although there are some indications in the press releases that came out with the Autumn Statement as to the initial view of the meaning of a qualified carried interest, but even though the profits will be treated as trading profits post 2026, that doesn’t mean a 45% actual tax rate will apply, because the initial indication is that tax will be subject to an adjustment by applying a 72.5% multiplier to the amount of tax.

This will be a significant increase and change the taxation of carried interest and so it’s going to be very interesting to see how private equity funds and the like adjust their incentivisation of managers between now and April 2026.

Changes to Carried Interest

Download this briefing as a PDF Contact us

Fountain pen

Forsters continues period of accelerated growth with appointment of new Head of Immigration

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.

Leading immigration partner Tracy Evlogidis joins Forsters from Withers to head the practice. This latest appointment is the third major lateral partner hire for Forsters this year.

London: 23 October 2024. Forsters, the leading London firm, announces today that Tracy Evlogidis is to join the firm to head up its immigration practice.  This is the third lateral partner appointment for Forsters in 2024, following the recent arrival of Head of Employment and Partnerships Jo Keddie from Winkworth Sherwood and Dispute Resolution partner Steven Richards from Foot Anstey. Tracy will be joined by two senior associates and an associate.

Tracy Evlogidis will provide a significant boost to Forsters’ immigration practice which serves a diverse range of private and corporate clients.  She brings over 25 years’ experience heading immigration practices at Withers and previously at Harbottle & Lewis, Speechly Bircham (now Charles Russell Speechlys) and Morgan Lewis. 

Tracy is a market-leading immigration lawyer with a long track record of delivering successful results for complex citizenship and residency applications. She is ranked in the Legal 500’s “Hall of Fame” and has been recognised as a “Leading Individual” in various Chambers & Partners directories. Recognised as a leading immigration authority, she works closely with the Home Office while being regularly consulted on policy and legislative proposals through her senior level contacts and participation in key working groups.

She advises on all areas of UK immigration and nationality law and has particular expertise in providing strategic advice to domestic and international businesses and senior executives – specifically high net worth individuals and leaders in the corporate and entertainment sectors. Her client base spans a wide range of industry sectors including, finance, fintech, legal, luxury brands, fashion, sport, education, design and charitable institutions.

Brexit and the recent removal of the Tier 1 Investor visa have added significant complexity to the UK immigration landscape for high net worth individuals and international businesses alike.  Forsters recognises that the current demand from its clients for leading edge immigration advice is significant.

Tracy’s client base aligns closely to that of Forsters and her expertise, experience and approach are fully aligned with the firm’s strategy and collegiate working culture.

Tracy Evlogidis said:‘The recent change in Government and generally emotive mood around UK borders have pushed immigration issues towards the top of the business agenda.  Post Brexit we have a pretty challenging set of circumstances both for corporates and high net worth individuals and against this backdrop Forsters felt like absolutely the right place from which to serve my clients.”

Xavier Nicholas, Head of Private Client at Forsters, said: ‘We look forward to welcoming Tracy to the firm. She will be a fantastic addition to our talented team of lawyers. She will add immense value – both on the private client side and to our client base of corporates, private equity funds, and family offices – all of which need support in navigating the challenging immigration landscape.’

Natasha Rees, Senior Partner at Forsters, commented: “The arrival of Tracy Evlogidis at Forsters adds heavyweight immigration expertise at a time when our client base has told us that they really need it.  Tracy is the third major lateral hire we have announced in recent months and we welcome her to the partnership.  She will make an instant and positive impact, for both our team and our clients.’

For further information please contact:

Ben Girdlestone, Byfield Consultancy

[email protected]

Tel: 07961 405459

Notes to editors: 

Founded in 1998, Forsters is a leading law firm based in London’s Marylebone. The firm acts for a diverse range of clients across four key service lines – private client, real estate, corporate and dispute resolution.  Clients include real estate funds, property companies, high net worth individuals, investors and entrepreneurs.

With 70 partners and more than 500 people, Forsters is widely recognised as having some of the brightest and best talent in the market and a commercial, client-centric and collegiate working culture. 

A smiling woman looks directly at the camera, wearing a patterned blouse and gold necklace, in a softly lit indoor setting.
Media contact

Nadine Gibbon

View profile

The new duty to prevent sexual harassment

Tablet held by a person, surrounded by others gesturing with pens; documents, notebooks, and coffee cups scattered on a wooden table, indicating a collaborative meeting setting.

Employers are subject to a new duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment at work with effect from 26 October.  This is a steep change, as employers must now proactively make efforts to address such behaviour. If a claim of sexual harassment is established, a Tribunal will have to consider as a matter of course whether the employer took suitable steps and, if not, any compensation may be increased by up to 25%.

Between the introduction of this new duty, the publication of related guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (or ‘EHRC’), and the approaching wave of work-related social events as the festive period draws nearer, there has never been a more opportune time for employers to act.  

In this article we share five practical ways to embrace this important change to the law. 

1. Introduce meaningful policy

Many employers will have longstanding policies to address harassment.  All too often, however, we see ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies which are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the new and more demanding duty.

Your policy should take into account the specific risks and challenges posed by your workforce and working environment.  For example, do you have risk factors such as lone or night workers, or colleagues in significant power imbalances?  The EHRC guidance lists a host of potential matters to consider, much in the same way that a health and safety assessment might be undertaken. It may be beneficial to discuss matters with colleagues, to gain a better understanding of the interactions faced by workers and employees.

Implementing thorough and accurate policies is likely to be more than a simple box-ticking exercise and having these documents available is important in ensuring that all members of the workforce understand what is expected of them when it comes to preventing sexual harassment. A well thought out and articulated policy will serve as valuable evidence that you have seriously considered your duty and taken steps to comply with it. 

Generally, a well-drafted policy should not stand isolated from your other policies, and this an opportune time to review things generally to ensure that compliance with this duty permeates your culture.

2. Implement consistent training

Having a policy in place is a crucial first step, but making sure that staff and management alike have received – and continue to receive – training on its content is essential to stand the strongest chance of making meaningful change and demonstrating compliance with the duty.

An effective training programme should cover: what constitutes sexual harassment; how to spot it; and how to appropriately respond to instances of sexual harassment, including escalating where appropriate.  We are very familiar with providing external training and welcome any queries about either introducing or delivering a suitable programme. 

It is worth bearing in mind that different roles are likely to require different training. For example, senior management may need a stronger awareness of how they will conduct investigations and risk assessments, whereas training for more junior colleagues may be best focussed upon reporting procedures.  Truly embedding this new approach to sexual harassment will require education throughout the workforce.

3. Set a framework for investigations

An investigative framework is another essential mechanism to make sure that complaints of sexual harassment are handled in a manner which is effective, sensitive and compliant with the law.

In the unfortunate circumstances where you need to investigate allegations, a robust plan and an informed group of potential investigators will be vital to ensure that matters are progressed swiftly and without confusion.  Key management figures should know what their role is vis-à-vis any investigation and how to support it effectively.

Under the spotlight of this new preventative duty, where an allegation of sexual harassment requires investigation, employers should conduct investigations through a lens of both fact finding and with a view to reflecting and learning, so that future occurrences of sexual harassment can be mitigated.

4. Actively manage internal processes

Strong policies, effective training and a clear investigative framework will do much to meet the challenge of the new preventative duty.  However, the duty is an ongoing one and treating compliance as a one-time exercise is unlikely to suffice.  Workplaces are ever-changing and active management will be necessary.

You might consider an annual review of internal processes, to reflect upon whether any changes to your workforce or workplace, or lessons learnt more generally, should change your approach. To make that meaningful, accurate records should be kept of incidents that have arisen and how they have been handled, as well the training that has been provided and to whom.

5. Read the guidance

Making these enduring changes is no small task.  However, while we await case law, the EHRC published detailed and helpful guidance in September which is likely to hold considerable sway.  The full guidance is available to read here.

The guidance helpfully provides case studies showing how the duty will apply in given scenarios. In addition, it explains legal terminology to help employers navigate the new requirements. Most notably, the guidance goes a significant way towards clarifying the ambiguity of what may be deemed to be ‘reasonable’ steps in a given workplace, although much will still depend on the context.

If you have any queries about how to implement the new duty to prevent sexual harassment, or would like assistance with policies, training or investigations, please do get in touch with our team.

The new duty to prevent sexual harassment

Download this briefing as a PDF Contact us

A compass, set against a bright yellow tangram

Tradition abolition – Emma Gillies and Rebecca Anstey write for STEP Journal

A plane flies overhead, seen from below, surrounded by towering glass skyscrapers in a cityscape, against a cloudy sky.

Emma Gillies and Rebecca Anstey on why the proposed abolition of the UK’s non-dom regime will have little impact on many UK resident Americans.

What is the issue?

The UK government has proposed changes to the taxation of non-UK domiciled, UK residents from 6
April 2025.

What does it mean for me?

Individuals will be looking to their advisors for help navigating these changes and those advising US
citizens will need to understand how the new rules affect their clients.

What can I take away?

The interaction between US and UK tax laws means that US citizens residing in or moving to the UK may not be as concerned as others by the changes, but there are still challenges and potential planning opportunities to be aware of.

It will be old news to many that the UK government plans to introduce changes to the tax treatment of non-UK domiciled, UK-resident individuals (so-called ‘non-doms’) with effect from 6 April 2025. Although many non-doms will have concerns about the impact of the new regime, US non-doms should be sheltered from the fallout more than most.

Proposed changes to UK income tax and capital gains tax

Abolition of the remittance basis

Non-doms can currently claim the remittance basis of taxation. Those who do are subject to tax on their UK-source income and capital gains as they arise, but only on non-UK income and gains if and to the extent that they are ‘remitted’ to (broadly, brought to or used in) the UK.

It is proposed that the remittance basis will be abolished and replaced by a new ‘foreign income and gains’ (FIG) regime. Under the FIG regime, those who have not been UK resident in any of the previous ten years will be exempt from tax on their non-UK income and gains during their first four years of residence (regardless of any remittances). Thereafter, they will become subject to tax on their worldwide income and gains as they arise.

In many cases, the loss of access to the remittance basis will not be a major concern to US non-doms.
Unlike most non-doms, US citizens are already exposed to tax (in the US) on their worldwide income and gains as they arise. Fortunately, there is a treaty in place between the UK and the US that is designed to provide relief from double taxation where a liability arises in both countries at the same time. A UK-resident US citizen (with exposure to tax in both countries under domestic rules) may be able to show that they should be treated as tax resident in the US for the purposes of the treaty, at least for the early years of residence when their ties to the US remain strong. In these cases, their exposure to UK tax will be limited to certain types of UK income, with no need to claim the remittance basis on their foreign income and gains.

Where the taxpayer is resident in the UK for the purposes of the treaty, they will generally be exposed to tax at the higher of the two countries’ effective rates on a given item of income or gain. In that scenario, the utility of the remittance basis is generally limited to avoiding the risk of double taxation. This can be helpful where an item of income or gain is treated differently in the UK and the US, and treaty relief is not available. It can also assist in avoiding a higher rate of tax in the UK than is payable in the US; for example, on investment returns from US mutual funds that do not have ‘reporting’ status in the UK, which are taxed at capital gains rates (20 per cent) in the US but income tax rates (45 per cent) in the UK.

For these reasons, it is uncommon for US non-doms to claim the remittance basis beyond the point at which it comes at the cost of an annual charge (i.e., from the beginning of the eighth consecutive tax year of residence). Before that, it can be convenient to claim the remittance basis from a reporting perspective. However, using the remittance basis to defer UK tax is generally not wise for US citizens, because a mismatch in the timing of the UK and US liabilities can often cause a loss of treaty relief, resulting (ironically) in double taxation. It should only really be used where the taxpayer is confident that their foreign income and gains will never be remitted to the UK.

Removal of ‘protected settlement’ status for ‘settlor-interested’ trusts

Under current rules, where a non-dom settles assets into a non-UK-resident trust, the trust’s non-UK source income and capital gains are generally sheltered from tax unless and until a UK-resident individual receives a benefit from the trust, at which point a liability may be triggered. It looks as though the protected’ status of these trusts will no longer be available under the new regime. Instead, where the UK-resident settlor retains an interest in the trust (within the relevant statutory definitions) it is proposed that the trust’s worldwide income and gains will be treated as arising to the settlor, and will be taxed accordingly.

Again, this change will be of less concern to many US settlors, who will have deliberately put their trusts outside the ‘protected settlement’ regime, having been advised to do so on the basis of double taxation risks. These arise because most lifetime trusts settled by US citizens will be grantor trusts for US income tax purposes, meaning the income and gains of the trust are taxed on the settlor as they arise. The resulting mismatch in the timing of the tax liability (immediate in the US versus deferred in the UK) and, potentially, the identity of the taxpayer (settlor in the US versus beneficiary in the UK) will often cause a loss of treaty relief. By contrast, maximum relief should be available if the income and gains are taxed on the settlor in both the UK and the US as they arise.

Changes to UK IHT

Under current rules, non-doms who are not deemed domiciled in the UK (because they have not been resident in 15 or more of the past 20 tax years) are only subject to UK inheritance tax (IHT) on UK assets. Under the new regime, domicile will no longer be relevant when assessing IHT. Instead, a person will become exposed to IHT on worldwide assets after ten years’ tax residence in the UK.

The deemed domicile ‘tail’

Currently, where a non-dom becomes deemed domiciled, they
will continue to be deemed domiciled for IHT purposes for a
further four tax years after ceasing UK residence. Under the new
regime, it is proposed that this IHT ‘tail’ will be extended to ten
years.

Thanks to the US-UK Estate and Gift Tax Convention (the Treaty), US citizens who leave the UK to return to the US will lose this ‘tail’ much sooner than other non-doms, provided they can show they are US resident for the purposes of the Treaty (and they are not UK citizens). In that scenario, the US will have exclusive taxing rights over the estate, save for UK immovable property or business property of a permanent establishment (BPPE).

Excluded property trusts

Until now, assets transferred into trust by non-doms (including US citizens) who are not yet deemed domiciled are excluded from IHT indefinitely (hence the term, ‘excluded property trusts’).

The government has announced that trust assets will no longer be excluded from IHT. However, some US citizens may be able to rely on the Treaty to achieve the same result. The Treaty provides that no IHT is due on trust assets (other than UK real estate and BPPE) settled by someone who was domiciled in the US and not a UK citizen. If the treaty continues to apply in the same way under the new regime (with UK domicile interpreted to mean ten years’ UK tax residence), assets settled into trust by US citizens who are not UK citizens and have not yet spent ten years in the UK may be protected from IHT beyond the ten-year threshold.

Impact on advice

  • US non-doms who currently make use of the remittance basis should review their financial affair with their advisors, with the Treaty in mind.
  • US citizens moving to the UK for the first time will have four tax years to tailor their investments to account for UK tax considerations. Pre-arrival advice will still be required to avoid tripping up on UK rules affecting existing trusts, business interests and reporting obligations.
  • UK-resident US citizens approaching the new ten-year threshold for worldwide IHT exposure may still consider trust planning to protect their non-UK assets from tax. Alternatives to cover include lifetime giving, structuring wills to defer IHT until the second death of a married couple, investing in relievable assets and/or taking out life insurance to cover the bill.

Tradition abolition, Emma Gillies and Rebecca Anstey, STEP Journal (Vol32, Iss5)  

Biodiversity Net Gain – Update September 2024

Blueprint displaying a detailed architectural floor plan, showcasing rooms, corridors, and spiral staircases. Grids and lines indicate measurements and sections. Text includes numbers and labels like "SALON."

Following the biodiversity net gain (“BNG”) requirements of the Environment Act 2021 coming into effect on 12 February 2024 and 2 April 2024 for major and small sites respectively, this note summarises some key points we have seen arise to date.

Please also refer to our previous notes of October 2023 and February 2024 for further detail on these obligations.

How are councils approaching BNG at application stage?

Broadly we have seen councils proactively engage with the BNG requirements but as expected, there are a number of issues arising due to local authority resourcing and the capacity to deal with the more onerous obligations associated with complying with the BNG requirements. Please refer to our note from February 2024 for details of what needs to be submitted at application stage.

We have seen some local authorities take an approach to the application requirements which does not accord with the legislative provisions. For example, we are aware of local authorities requiring the offsite gain units (where applicable) to have already been located and identified at application stage. There is no regulatory requirement for this and from a practical perspective, it is often unlikely that applicants and developers will be able to demonstrate this at application stage, particularly given the number of registered gain sites (see further comments below).

Does the bng regime apply where the council does not expressly impose the relevant condition on the face of the permission?

Yes, the pre-commencement condition requiring a biodiversity gain plan to be submitted is deemed to be imposed regardless as to whether it is included within the decision notice itself. It is important to bear this in mind when reviewing decision notices possibly with the intention of acquiring sites to develop or for investment purposes, as we are aware that some councils have not expressly included the condition even where the permission is subject to the BNG regime.

Are planning applications for alterations to building subject to the bng regime?

Alteration applications are not specifically excluded but some of the exemptions could apply. In particular, the BNG regime does not apply to the works carried out pursuant to a development right. Equally, the de minimis exemption is likely to apply in the context of alterations; in broad terms if the works will impact less than 25sqm of onsite habitat the statutory BNG regime will not apply.

It may therefore become important to consider the extent of the application boundary when applying for planning permission, to ensure this does not include any habitat at the property which is not in reality the subject of the application.

Is the biodiversity register working effectively?

The register itself is publicly available and (at the date of this note) shows 11 registered gain sites. The register of course only shows the sites once they have been registered and where applicable the allocation and as a result, it is not representative of the number of sites which are in the pipeline to come forward. We are aware there are various sites where preparation work is underway for the gain sites to be dedicated but where this has not yet completed. Commercially, this may be because landowners are reluctant to tie up their land for this purpose until buyers for the units have been found.

How is the market for offsite gain units emerging?

Given the number of developments which will not be able to deliver the entire required 10% gain on site, the market for offsite units will continue to grow in importance. The hierarchy of mitigation options means the BNG system is to an extent reliant on offsite units continuing to become available, otherwise the default position will be the purchase of the statutory credits which have been priced to disincentivise this option. This balance between the supply of the gain sites and the demand for the units is still emerging in these initial months since the regime became mandatory. As more applications which are submitted requiring offsite units it will become clear whether demand outgrows supply and at that point, whether the resort to the statutory credits becomes more prevalent than it has been to date.

Can applications to allocate units to a development be made at the same time as the registration of the gain site?

Yes, applications to register an offsite gain area and allocate the associated units can be submitted at the same time. This is achieved via the online registration platform. Operating via this approach would be taken where the dedication and allocation has effectively happened simultaneously, perhaps where a landowner has dedicated land specifically for the purposes of providing the relevant units to offset a particular development.

How long does it take to register a gain site and allocate units to a development?

The Government website currently indicates a 6 week period from receipt of the application to registration (provided the application is successful). The time period for this registration gap should be factored into transactional timetables which may be conditional on successful registration of the gain site.

Will it be less onerous to comply with the bng requirements when trying to develop brownfield land?

The level of difficulty in complying with the BNG obligations will often be dependent on the baseline number of units on the site, as this dictates the target level of the 10% uplift. The rules apply equally to brownfield and greenfield land and regardless of the level of the baseline.

The assumption is that often, brownfield sites will have a lower baseline ecological value than their greenfield counterparts. Whilst in some cases this will be the position, it is not necessarily the case. As a particular example, open mosaic habitats are often found on brownfield land and are classified as a ‘high distinctiveness’ habitat in the statutory metric. An open mosaic habitat is identified by hard surfaces interspersed with vegetated areas; an example would be broken or fragmented paving in which habitats have naturally grown and often developing over a long period of time.

It therefore remains important to do robust initial assessments of the onsite habitat as early as possible and not assume that a brownfield site will have a low ecological baseline value.

Is there an industry standard s106 agreement for the purposes of securing bng?

Each local authority will have its own preferred form of s106 agreement for addressing BNG, similar to any other type of planning obligation. In terms of dedicating land as an offsite BNG area, again this will often depend on the dedicating party and whether a local authority or habitat provider are party to the agreement who may have preferred form documents in place.

In terms of the BNG plan to be submitted to discharge the planning conditions, the government has prepared an example plan which can be used to apply to discharge the pre-commencement condition. It is expected that most local authorities’ preference will be that the BNG plans follow this template.

Please get in touch with our Planning Team for any specific advice or guidance on any individual sites.

Information correct as at September 2024. This note is a summary, please refer to the legislation and guidance for full details.

Help! How do I stop my neighbour letting out their property on Airbnb?

Terraced houses in brick stand in a row, featuring black doors and white-framed windows. A street lamp with hanging flowers sits in front, and a sign reads "Shouldham Street W1".

In the current cost of living crisis, with sky-high property prices, and incoming rental law reform, an increasing number of leaseholders and homeowners are turning to short-term letting agencies such as Airbnb to generate extra income from their property. While these short-term lettings might seem like a quick and easy way to generate income for the occupier, they can be disturbing to those living nearby and can have legal ramifications. So, can you stop your neighbour from letting out their property on a short-term basis?

Failure to obtain planning permission

Your neighbour may require planning permission to let the property on a short-term basis. In London, you must obtain planning permission if you are intending to let your property out for over 90 days a year (see Sections 25 and 25A of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973). You can check the local authority’s planning portal to see whether your neighbour has obtained the relevant permissions. If planning permission has not been obtained, the local authority may be willing to take enforcement action to restrain the unauthorised use.

Breach of the lease

If your neighbour holds their property pursuant to a long lease, the lease might require the property to be used only as a private residence: to let the property on a short-term basis is likely to be a breach of this provision. The lease may also prohibit the letting of the property on a short-term basis without consent from the landlord and/or without appropriate planning consent. The use of the property as a short-term letting may also invalidate the building’s insurance and be contrary to the terms of the leaseholder’s mortgage. If any of these apply, you may be able to ask your landlord to take steps to force your neighbour to comply with the terms of their lease.

Private or statutory nuisance

The use as a short-term letting may constitute either a private or statutory nuisance, or both.  In the first instance, you may wish to alert the local authority of the actions of your neighbour, as they may be able to take action against the neighbour if their actions amount to a statutory nuisance, which can include things like noise and light from a premises or an accumulation of waste. The local authority may serve an abatement notice to restrain the nuisance. Alternatively, you could bring civil proceedings for an injunction compelling your neighbour to stop any private nuisance. These proceedings are expensive but the threat of proceedings and your neighbour’s liability for costs could be sufficient to stop your neighbour’s actions.  

If you require advice in relation to any of these issues, please contact our real estate disputes team.

Katya Churchill
Author

Katya Churchill

View profile