Court of Appeal shuns Upper Tribunal’s interpretation of salaried members rules
The Court of Appeal has sided with HMRC regarding the definition of “significant influence” in respect of the salaried members rules. What happened and what does this mean for members of limited liability partnerships (LLPs)?

The salaried members rules treat individual members of an LLP as employees for the purposes of income tax and National Insurance where three conditions are met. The rules aim to prevent individuals from benefitting from the lower tax rates available to self-employed individuals without taking on the risks and responsibilities associated with owning a business.
In HMRC v Bluecrest Capital Management (UK) LLP, the case concerns the application of condition B, which applies where the member does not have significant influence over the affairs of the LLP. The members of the LLP (BC) in question contended that some portfolio managers did have significant influence, as they were each managing over $100m investments. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) agreed with BC that “significant influence” can mean influence over part of the LLP’s affairs. However, the Court of Appeal found that the FT and UT had erred in law. It was confirmed that in order to “fail” condition B, a member’s influence should apply to the affairs of the whole LLP and must be held via legally enforceable rights and duties of members, i.e. the LLP agreement. The appeal was allowed, the court set aside the decision of the UT and has remitted the case to the FTT for reconsideration.
Members of LLPs should review the application of the salaried members rules if they, like BC in this case, previously relied on HMRC guidance in respect of the level of influence required.
Related Topics
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?