Loading…
Close iconClose icon DarkLight mode

Find us quickly

130 Wood Street, London, EC2V 6DL
enquiries@buzzacott.co.uk    T +44 (0)20 7556 1200

Google map screengrab
Last updated: 14 Feb 2025
On this page

The Bluecrest Case: the Court of Appeal decision narrows the interpretation of significant influence

The Court of Appeal (CoA) decision in the BlueCrest Capital ‘salaried member’ case could be the catalyst for more HMRC enquiries into Fund Managers structured as LLPs. So, what should firms do now to reduce the risk of a potential HMRC enquiry?

The eagerly anticipated CoA decision in the case of HMRC v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP was released on 17 January 2025. The decision has narrowed the interpretation of what is meant by ‘significant influence’ for Condition B of the ‘salaried member’ rules. This has a direct impact on LLP members relying on failing this condition who will now need to carefully review their position.

About the authors

Matthew Baldock

+44 (0)20 3972 6623
baldockm@buzzacott.co.uk
LinkedIn

Antoine Housden

+44 (0)207 710 3121
housdena@buzzacott.co.uk
LinkedIn

The eagerly anticipated CoA decision in the case of HMRC v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP was released on 17 January 2025. The decision has narrowed the interpretation of what is meant by ‘significant influence’ for Condition B of the ‘salaried member’ rules. This has a direct impact on LLP members relying on failing this condition who will now need to carefully review their position.

Background

Background

The BlueCrest case, which began in 2022, is the first case where the application of the ‘salaried member’ legislation has been examined by the tribunals and now the CoA. This legislation, introduced in 2014, sets out three conditions that results in an individual LLP member being taxed as an employee, rather than self-employed, if they all apply. Broadly, the conditions are: 

  • Condition A – Disguised remuneration – 80 percent of the member’s profit share is ‘disguised salary’ i.e. remuneration that is fixed, or variable without relation to the overall profits of the LLP, or not in practice affected by those profits;
  • Condition B – The member does not have significant influence over the affairs of the LLP; and
  • Condition C – The member’s capital contribution to the LLP is less than 25 percent of their ‘disguised salary’. 

BlueCrest had claimed their members failed conditions A and B. 

While the judgement in respect of condition A has been consistent throughout – only being failed where there is a clear link between the LLP’s overall profits and how the member’s profit share is calculated –both the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) previously found that some of the members failed condition B, even though they could only significantly influence particular aspects of the LLP’s affairs.

Court of Appeal decision

Court of Appeal decision

The CoA found that informal or de facto influence will not be sufficient to fail condition B, but rather the legally enforceable rights and duties of a LLP member would need to be considered, whether contractual as part of the LLP agreement, or statutory by the default provisions within the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 (LLPA 2000). 

The case will now be remitted to the FTT for reassessment unless an appeal is launched to the Supreme Court by BlueCrest within 28 days of the decision. This would inevitably be a long drawn-out process that could take a couple of years. While this leaves the position uncertain, in the interim we still expect HMRC to use the CoA narrowing of significant influence to challenge other LLPs. The risk will be heightened for individual members of LLPs who rely solely on failing this condition.

What does the decision mean for LLPs?

What does the decision mean for LLPs?

This decision should hopefully impact smaller LLPs to a lesser extent, where all members are required under the LLP agreement or statutory provisions within the LLPA 2000 to significantly influence the LLP’s affairs as a whole. It is however a much harder test for members of medium/larger sized LLPs to fail, particularly where only a small number of members sit on the management board that has responsibility for the overall strategy and affairs of the LLP. 

Although HMRC changed its guidance on condition C last year, in that genuine capital contributions made with the sole purpose of avoiding the ‘salaried member’ rules would be disregarded. We understand that following an internal review by HMRC this change in guidance will now be reversed.

The ever changing HMRC guidance, and the CoA decision, highlights the need for LLPs to carefully consider which of the conditions their members fail, if they are to avoid being taxed as employees.

We would recommend that all LLPs review and document their ‘salaried member’ position annually as part of the annual compliance process. We would also recommend the rules are reviewed as a separate exercise as and when members are being admitted to the LLP, or either the LLP’s activities, or individual member’s roles and functions change.

Any members relying solely on failing condition B should undertake a review of their position to make sure that there is sufficient evidence to justify this position considering the CoA’s judgment. LLPs may wish to consider amending the terms of the LLP agreement where this does not currently align with the way the firm is influenced by its members.

What next?

What next?

We expect this decision to result in HMRC looking to challenge the ‘salaried member’ rules more actively than they already have. With employers’ national insurance contributions increasing from April 2025, there will be added incentive for HMRC to use the legislation, and this decision, as reason to try to tax members as employees where there is an element of doubt.

At Buzzacott, we offer formal ‘salaried member’ reviews and can provide advice and support on the conditions, including reviewing the LLP Agreements, or considerations when new members are admitted. While this does not guarantee that HMRC will not enquire into your position, if advice has been taken and can be presented in response to questions raised by HMRC on the ‘salaried member’ rules, this should result in a quicker resolution to a potential enquiry.

If you have any questions about how the ‘salaried member’ rules impact you or your LLP, please fill out the form below and one of our experts will be in touch. 

Close iconClose icon backback
Your search for "..."
did not yield any results.
... results for "..."
Search Tags