header-logo header-logo

24 October 2025
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Tax
printer mail-detail

Tax shock ahead for partners?

Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget

Reeves is considering imposing a charge on people who use LLPs, as part of a tax raid on lawyers, accountants, locum doctors, doctors in private practice and other professionals such as consultants, The Times and other outlets reported this week. Current speculation suggests it would be set at less than the 15% rate of national insurance, could raise about £2bn per year and would affect LLPs only, not partnerships as a whole.

An LLP partner’s liability is limited to their investment and they are treated as self-employed for tax purposes so do not pay the 15% rate for employer national insurance contributions.

However, nobody will know for certain whether Reeves is kite-flying to test the idea or serious until budget day on 26 November.

David McNeill, the Law Society’s director of public affairs, said the alleged plan ‘makes no logical sense as a joined-up growth strategy.

‘Imposing a new tax on LLPs could be a big hit on the legal profession, a sector which the government is depending on as part of its growth strategy. Law partnerships don’t get the same tax breaks for investment as other businesses but are now having to pay the same levels of tax. On top of that, law firms are facing the risk of new regulation costs and bureaucracy’.

Categories: Legal News , Profession , Tax
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll