header-logo header-logo

02 June 2011
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

HMRC tightens squeeze on law firms

An independent finance provider has reported a surge in the number of law firms seeking funds for their VAT bills following HMRC’s decision to wind up its “Time to Pay” scheme.

Syscap, which provides funding and financial advice to companies, says requests from law firms specifically related to funding for VAT bills doubled in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the same period last year, reaching 166. It attributes the rise to the fact HMRC has started to reject more Time to Pay tax deferral applications, and says it anticipates a further rise in funding requests as the impact of the increase in VAT to 20% in January takes full effect.

The scheme was a popular government initiative to allow viable businesses to defer tax payments during the economic downturn.

However, over the past 12 months, the number of scheme arrangements agreed by HMRC has fallen 43% from 57,800 to 32,900 in the first quarters of 2010 and 2011. In the same period, the number of rejected applicants rose by 50%.

Payment terms are becoming more stringent, Syscap reports, with businesses being offered shorter payment plans. Nearly two-thirds are now for three months or less. Businesses are sometimes being asked to apply for a bank loan or make a tax payment with a credit card before becoming eligible for the scheme.

Philip White, chief executive of Syscap, says: “Solicitors firms have been a heavy user of the Time to Pay scheme, and it is worrying that these figures show that HMRC is winding it down at a time when the legal profession is clearly still struggling. We may not technically be in recession, but if you look at the six month trend, growth is flat-lining."

Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll