Expert guidance from Shipleys without compromising your beliefs

IN THE UK’s corporate realm, the concept of limited liability shields directors from personal accountability for company debts, including tax obligations. However, there are specific instances where HMRC can pierce this corporate veil, seeking recompense directly from directors.

In today’s Shipleys Tax note we outline these rare yet significant circumstances and the potential legislative defences that may be available to company directors.

The Principle of Limited Liability Status

Limited liability maintains a distinct legal separation between the company and its directors. Nevertheless, this shield is not impervious. There are certain situations, often involving serious misconduct or negligence, where directors can find themselves personally liable for the company’s unpaid taxes.

Where Might Directors Face Personal Liability?

Director’s Personal Guarantees

When a director provides a personal guarantee for a company’s debt, they pledge their own assets as security for the loan. This guarantee means that if the company cannot repay its debts, the director’s personal assets can be targeted to recover the amount owed. Similarly, if a director has an outstanding balance in their director’s loan account, which is not settled before the company enters insolvency, they may become personally liable to repay this debt.

Wrongful or Fraudulent Trading

Directors must act responsibly with regard to the company’s financial status. Under insolvency rules, if directors continue to trade when they know the company is insolvent, or if they incur debts without a reasonable prospect of the company being able to repay them, they can be held personally liable for wrongful trading.

Fraudulent trading goes a step further, where directors deliberately set out to defraud creditors. In such cases, the courts can hold directors personally responsible for the company’s debts, resulting in serious legal and financial repercussions.

Tax Evasion or Avoidance

Tax legislation gives HMRC additional powers to hold directors accountable for tax evasion or avoidance. If a director is found to have a history of corporate insolvency, particularly if insolvency has been used as a means to evade or avoid tax liabilities, HMRC can pursue them personally. This legislation aims to deter directors from using insolvency as a tax evasion strategy, ensuring that corporate tax liabilities are met.

Personal Liability Notices (PLNs)

HMRC uses Personal Liability Notices to hold directors personally liable for the non-payment of PAYE or National Insurance Contributions (NIC). These notices are issued when HMRC believes that the non-payment was a result of the director’s neglect or fraudulent behaviour. Once a PLN is issued, directors can face significant personal financial liabilities, which HMRC will actively seek to recover.

Possible Mitigating Factors

When facing action from HMRC for liabilities such as PAYE, NIC, VAT, or Corporation Tax (CT), directors can employ several defences to potentially mitigate or challenge personal liability:

1. Lack of Intent: Demonstrating that there was no intention to evade tax payments, that any underpayment was a result of genuine error or misinterpretation of complex tax laws, can be a defence. Evidence seeking clarification or rectifying mistakes as soon as they were discovered needs to be maintained.
2. Reliance on Professional Advice: reliance on the advice of competent tax advisors or accountants might provide a shield against liability. However, reliance on professional advice is not absolute and usually requires proof that the advice was professional, based on correct accurate information, and reasonable.
3. No Direct Involvement: A director may argue they were not involved in the day-to-day management of the company or in the financial decisions that led to the unpaid taxes. This could apply in situations where there is a clear division of responsibilities among multiple directors.
4. Procedural Errors by HMRC: If HMRC fail to follow proper procedures or meet certain legal requirements when issuing a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) or taking other actions, this may invalidate their claim.
5. Unforeseeable Circumstances: Events beyond the director’s control, such as sudden market changes, natural disasters, or other external shocks that impact the company’s ability to pay, might be used as a defence, especially if these events can be clearly shown to correlate with the period of non-payment.
6. Active Engagement with HMRC: Demonstrating that there was active engagement with HMRC regarding any payment issues, attempts to negotiate payment plans, or voluntary disclosures of potential underpayments can act in the director’s favour.
7. Economic Reality: In some cases, directors can argue that, despite their best efforts, the company was unable to meet its tax obligations due to economic conditions affecting the company’s liquidity.

It is crucial for directors to maintain accurate records and documentation to support these defences. They should engage with legal and tax professionals as soon as they are aware of potential tax liabilities or HMRC actions, to ensure their case is as strong as possible.

In conclusion, while the UK legislation primarily places the burden of unpaid taxes on the company, directors can be made personally liable in certain circumstances. If a director finds themselves facing a PLN or potential liabilities for unpaid taxes, it’s essential to seek advice from an tax expert or professional adviser.

For further assistance or queries, please call 0114 272 4984 or email info@shipleystax.com.

Please note that Shipleys Tax do not give free advice by email or telephone. The content of this article is for general guidance only and should not be considered as tax or professional advice. For advice on tax matters, always consult with a qualified professional.

Want more tax tips and news? Sign up to our newsletter below.

HMRC IS SENDING letters to some offshore (non-resident) companies that appear to have failed to notify that they own commercial property in the UK.

In today’s Shipleys Tax note we look at what this means for overseas landlords owning property in the UK and what you need to do to avoid falling foul of HMRC’s rules.

From Income Tax to Corporation Tax

Before 6 April 2020, rental income garnered by non-UK resident companies fell under the domain of income tax. However, post this date, these companies are required to adhere to corporation tax rules for any liability.

HMRC’s Requirement for Registration

HMRC is actively reaching out to companies that have so far missed registering under either of the tax rules. It appears that their knowledge about these companies and their property holdings originates from HM Land Registry or the newly established Register of Overseas Entities, which itself went live this year on 31 January 2023.

In these letters, companies are prompted to fill out a certificate to ascertain if there’s a need to declare any unpaid tax on their rental income. Depending on the company’s declaration, they are guided either towards the voluntary disclosure procedure or, in cases of potential tax fraud, towards the contractual disclosure facility.

Additionally, the letters urge companies to evaluate if the UK’s complicated “transfer of assets abroad provisions” apply, especially concerning UK-resident individuals who might have an interest in the company’s income or capital.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first instance of such letters being dispatched. Similar letters were sent to offshore corporates owning UK properties in the past, chiefly concerning residential property income and potential tax liabilities under the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED).

A Warning and the Potential Consequences

HMRC’s current communication comes with a clear warning: Companies are given a window of 40 days to either initiate the disclosure process or provide an explanation if they believe they’re exempt from disclosure. Failure to respond could see HMRC estimating what it believes the company owes, potentially sparking an investigation. This could further culminate in added penalties. The statement in the letter is quite straightforward, stating, “If we later find that you have not told us everything, we’ll view this very seriously.”

Alternative Disclosure Methods?

While the letters might sound imposing, recipients should note that they’re not legally bound to complete and return the certificates. As per the guidance from the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT), there are other disclosure methods at their disposal, some of which might be more suitable than those delineated in HMRC’s letter.

According to the CIOT, HMRC cannot compel a taxpayer to use any specific method for their disclosure. Depending on the situation, other methods may be more apt. Therefore, taxpayers and companies should be discerning, consider the unique facts of their situation, and seek advice on the best disclosure approach.

Conclusion

For non-UK resident companies with UK property assets, staying abreast of the latest tax regulations is paramount. With HMRC actively reaching out to those who haven’t registered under the updated tax rules, it’s crucial to understand one’s obligations and rights, ensuring compliance while also leveraging the most appropriate disclosure methods. If in doubt, always seek expert guidance to navigate these complex tax waters.

If you would like assistance, or would like more information, please call 0114 272 4984 or email info@shipleystax.com.

Please note that Shipleys Tax do not give free advice by email or telephone.

Want more tax tips and news? Sign up to our newsletter below.