Reduce the credit allowed against corporation tax (CT) or deduction given against company income if a foreign tax authority makes a repayment of foreign tax not only to the claimant company or to a person connected with that company but also, as a result of a scheme (widely defined), to a third person.

Limit the amount of relief for foreign tax on a non-trading credit from a loan relationship, deemed loan relationship, derivative contract or intangible fixed asset to the amount of CT on the net amount of the credit after deducting related debits.

B has an excessive share of the partnership's profit (either because that share includes an amount representing a deferred profit of A or it exceeds the appropriate notional profit).

Where B's share of the partnership profit exceeds the appropriate notional profit, A has the power to enjoy B's profit share (for example, because A is a controlling shareholder in B) and it is reasonable to assume that B's profit share (or part of it) is attributable to A's power to enjoy.

A's profit share, and the total amount of tax for which A and B are liable, are lower than they would have been absent the deferred profit arrangements or A's power to enjoy in B's profit share.

High risk promoters of tax avoidance schemes will be subject to new information disclosure and penalty rules. The disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) rules were introduced in 2004 to require persons that promote, and in certain cases persons that use, certain tax avoidance schemes, to disclose their use to HMRC (see Practice note, Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes under DOTAS: direct tax). Since 2011, the DOTAS rules have been the subject of several government consultations; the most recent consultation, which launched in August 2013 and closed in October 2013, included the prospect of increased disclosure and penalty requirements on promoters that are determined to be "high risk" (see Legal update, Consultation on tax avoidance schemes). In the Autumn Statement, the government has confirmed that it will now introduce new rules for high risk promoters. The rules will cover objective criteria for identifying promoters that are high risk and will introduce higher standards of reasonable excuse and reasonable care, as well as higher penalties, to apply to them. The rules will also introduce new obligations for clients of these promoters, including that they will need to identify themselves to HMRC. The consultation document outlined various detailed proposals on how the rules may work (for example, two possible approaches for identifying high risk promoters), but no further detail on how they will actually work is yet available.

Users of tax avoidance schemes that HMRC has defeated in a tribunal or court will have to concede their position. The August 2013 consultation included discussion on the use by many users at once of schemes that avoid tax using the same (or very similar) legislation or points of law. In the Autumn Statement, the government has confirmed that it will now introduce new rules requiring users of avoidance schemes that are defeated in a court or tribunal in another party's litigation, to concede their position to HMRC. Where there has been a relevant decision, HMRC will issue a notice to all users of the scheme in question, requiring them to amend their tax returns accordingly, or advise HMRC as to why they believe they should not. If a user fails to amend a return and the user's avoidance scheme subsequently fails on the same point of law, a tax-geared penalty will be charged.

Users of tax avoidance schemes that have been defeated in the courts will have to pay the tax in dispute to HMRC upfront. As part of its measures against users of the same (or very similar) tax avoidance schemes, the government will introduce new rules that allow HMRC to issue "pay now" notices to require users of schemes that have been defeated in the courts in another party's litigation, to pay the disputed amount upfront to HMRC or face penalties for non-compliance. If the user subsequently succeeds with any litigation in the courts, HMRC will repay the tax with interest. The measure is designed to prevent users of tax avoidance schemes from benefitting even from the cash-flow advantage of holding onto an amount of tax while the relevant tax avoidance scheme is being disputed in the courts. The government will also consult on widening the criteria under which users will be required to pay tax up front.

A loan (UK creditor relationship) is made by a UK resident company that is connected with the CFC (or which was connected with a company with which the CFC is connected) to a connected non-UK resident company.

An arrangement is made in connection with the UK creditor relationship.

(One of) the main purpose(s) of the arrangement is to reduce the loan relationship credits or increase the loan relationship debits of the UK resident company.

A holding company may be inserted at the top of a group of companies in such a way as not to trigger a restriction on the availability of trading losses.

The definition of "a significant increase in capital" (one of the conditions under which loss relief by be restricted on a change in ownership of a company with investment business) will be amended to refer to the capital in the company after the change of ownership exceeding the amount of capital before the change of ownership by both £1 million and 25%.

An increase in certain SAYE and SIP limits.

New tax reliefs, including a tax exemption for bonuses, for businesses that are indirectly employee-owned.

Enhance the existing anti-avoidance provisions of section 492 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to prevent abuse of the "bond fund" rules in Chapter 3 of Part 6 of that Act (see Practice note, Loan relationships: Corporate holdings in debt funds).

"Clarify and rationalise" certain aspects of the bond fund rules.

Permit corporate investors to make a claim in certain prescribed circumstances to disapply the bond fund rules.

"Clarify and rationalise" the tax treatment of corporate partners where loan relationships and derivative contracts are held by a partnership (see Practice note, Loan relationships: Partnerships).

The first amendment explicitly applies the definition of a "75% subsidiary" found in Chapter 3 of Part 24 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 for the purposes of the debt cap rules. However, this change arguably is only by way of clarification, as section 1154(1) of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 applies that definition "for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts" generally; it seems to be made merely to facilitate the "main" grouping definition change.

The "main" change is to ensure that group structures including companies or other bodies corporate without ordinary share capital (such as companies limited by guarantee) do not fall outside the debt cap rules. The aim is to treat holdings in or through companies without ordinary shares in the same way as holdings in or through companies with such shares. This is achieved by reading the grouping rules in the Corporation Tax Act 2010 referred to above with "all modifications necessary" to ensure that:

In applying these rules, a "corresponding ordinary holding" is a holding or interest that provides economic rights "corresponding" to those provided by the holding of ordinary shares in a company. However, as with the modifications described above, the use of the term "correspond" here may lead to some uncertainty as to the application of the rules, as no greater clarity is given as to when, and to what extent, a holding "corresponds" to a holding of ordinary shares, or how the application of legislation to a structure containing companies without ordinary shares may be said to "correspond" to its application to a structure hypothesising only companies with ordinary shares. The explanatory note to the draft legislation gives the example of a foreign partnership having residual interests, which would correspond to ordinary shares, and preferred interest, which would not.

The draft legislation also disapplies sections 169 to 182 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 for the purposes of the debt cap rules. These provisions modify the profits and assets available for distribution to which a company is treated as entitled for grouping purposes, and are described in the explanatory note to the draft legislation as "not required" in the context of the debt cap.

The new rules apply to arrangements that:

No credit or debit is to be brought into account in respect of (any of) the derivative(s) that relates to the profit transfer, subject to the following provisions.

A credit is not disallowed if it arises (directly or indirectly) in connection with arrangements (one of) the main purpose(s) of which is securing a tax advantage (as defined in section 1139 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010) to any person.

Credits and debits are not denied under these rules to the extent that the relevant derivatives (alone or with other derivatives outside the arrangements) are in a hedging relationship with one or more derivatives between the paying company and a company that is not in the same group as A and/or B. However, this provision is disapplied to credits or debits arising directly or indirectly in connection with arrangements of which (one of) the main purpose(s) is securing a tax advantage for any person.

Two companies are treated as members of the same group for these purposes if they are in the same group at any time when the arrangements have effect. "Group" has the same meaning here as in the patent box regime (see Practice note, Patent box: Groups of companies).

Limit the protected deposit exclusion (see Practice note, Bank levy: Protected deposits) to amounts insured under a deposit protection scheme (see Practice note, Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive). This change applies from January 2015.

Treat all derivatives as short term (see Practice note, Bank levy: Long-term equity and liabilities and short-term liabilities). This change applies from January 2015.

Restrict relief for a bank’s high quality liquid assets (see Practice note, Bank levy: Chargeable equity and liabilities and High quality liquid assets) to the rate applicable to long-term liabilities (see Practice note, Bank levy: Long-term equity and liabilities and short-term liabilities). This change applies from January 2015.

Align the bank levy definition of Tier one capital (see Practice note, Bank levy: Tier one capital) with the new Capital Requirements Directive (see Practice note, CRD IV: CRD IV Directive; see also Tax legislation tracker: finance: Tax treatment of new capital instruments to accommodate Basel III). This change applies from January 2014.

Exclude from the calculation of the levy liabilities in respect of collateral that has been passed on to a central counterparty. This change applies from January 2014.

Widen HMRC's legislation-making powers in relation to the bank levy (effective from Royal Assent to the Finance Bill 2014) to ensure that the rules can be kept in line with financial regulation.

Extend the ring fence expenditure supplement from six to 10 accounting periods for all onshore ring fence oil and gas losses and qualifying pre-commencement expenditure incurred on or after 5 December 2013.

The government announced this in the 2013 Budget and launched a consultation on this in July 2013 (see Legal updates, 2013 Budget: key business tax announcements: Shale gas tax incentives consultation and Consultation on tax incentives for shale gas exploration and production). It will publish its response to the consultation on 10 December 2013.

With effect from Royal Assent to that Bill, extend reinvestment relief to prevent a chargeable gain being subject to a corporation tax charge if a company sells an asset in the course of exploration and appraisal activities and reinvests the proceeds in the UK or UKCS.

Again with effect from Royal Assent to that Bill, extend the substantial shareholding exemption (SSE) to treat a company as having held a substantial shareholding in a subsidiary being disposed of for the 12-month period before the disposal if that subsidiary is using assets for oil and gas exploration and appraisal that have been transferred from other group companies.

For more information on the SSE, see Practice note, Substantial shareholding exemption: overview.

That capital expenditure will not be relievable if production from the site is (or is expected to be) greater than 7 million tonnes.

How a company is to treat capital expenditure incurred before a site is established.

That a company's unused allowances are carried forward to the next accounting period.

That if a company holds both field allowances and new, onshore allowances, it may choose the order in which it uses these allowances.

That if a company has an interest in a licence for more than one site, it may elect for the whole or part of its unactivated allowances (allowances for a site that generates no income) in one site to be transferred to another site.