header-logo header-logo

LLPs await tax liability rise

07 January 2014
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Salary & equity partners to be impacted by changes to the status of LLP members

Changes to the status of LLP members this year will have “significant” financial consequences for salary and equity partners but there could be an upside, say tax experts. 

HMRC’s partnership tax reform for LLPs is due to come into effect on 6 April 2014, from when many junior, salaried or even equity partners in LLPs will be treated as employees, depending on their share of profits, influence and investment of own capital in the business. 

Dominic Vincent, insolvency partner at Weightmans LLP, says the proposed reform is “an unwelcome reminder to professional practices that despite their best laid plans unexpected financial pressures can still arise in the most efficiently run businesses”.

However, Peter Noyce, head of professional services at accountants Menzies LLP, says: “Re-classifying fixed equity, and perhaps even full equity, partners as employees would add considerably to national insurance costs, but there is a bigger picture to consider.

“Since the introduction of alternative business structures and resultant influx of well capitalised new entrants to the legal services market, the gearing of law firms has become a problem and made it harder for them to compete. However, under the government’s proposals a partner in an LLP will not be deemed as employed if their capital contribution is more than 25% of their expected profit share.

“In the months leading up to 5 April 2014, many partners will choose to inject capital into the LLP to protect their self-employed status. This would immediately give firms a more robust capital base, a stronger balance sheet and improved working capital.

“The proposed tax changes offer a second potential benefit for law firm finances. One of the criteria for avoiding employed status is that partner remuneration should depend on the firm’s profits. This requirement may encourage a more prudent approach to drawings.”

Issue: 7589 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll