header-logo header-logo

Partners win right to appeal taxable partnership profits

25 March 2010
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Recession prompts boost in enforced retirements

Partners are increasingly being forced to “retire” as a result of the economic downturn, leading to a rise in partnership tax disputes.

Anecdotal evidence suggests enforced “retirements” are on the rise, are often acrimonious and are frequently accompanied by arguments over the amount of taxable profits which should be allocated to the partner, according to accountants Smith & Williamson.

Departing partners can be faced with a substantial tax bill with which he or she disagrees.

The situation is made worse by the fact there is often “an inequality of arms between the warring parties”, Smith & Williamson says, since the retired partner may not be able to afford legal representation and may no longer have access to the firm’s detailed records. Moreover, HMRC will only liaise with the partner nominated by the firm to compute assessable profits, and has hitherto treated this figure as “sacrosanct”.

However, two recent tax tribunal decisions suggest HMRC’s stance is incorrect, and have found in favour of the individual.

In Morgan

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll