UK: Tax Update - Round Up Of Recent Tax Issues, 31 January 2011

Last Updated: 4 February 2011
Article by Richard Mannion

General news

1.1 Changes to the penalties for late filed Self Assessment (Income Tax) Tax Returns.

Prospective amendments relating to the penalties for the failure to make returns etc were included in Finance Act 2009.

HMRC has published a draft order for external comment which will bring into effect the new late filing and late payment penalties from 6 April 2011 (in relation to tax years ending after 5 April 2010) for personal, trust and partnership returns.

The rule that the personal/trust late filing penalty was the lower of £100 and the balance of tax due will be replaced. The penalties for late filing will include:

  • £100 penalty immediately after the due date for filing (whether or not the tax has been paid);
  • daily penalties of £10 per day for returns that are more than 3 months late, running for a maximum of 90 days;
  • penalties of 5% of tax due for the return period (or £300 if greater) for prolonged failures (over 6 months and again at 12 months)
  • higher penalty of 70% of the tax due where a person fails to submit a return for over 12 months and has deliberately withheld information necessary for HMRC to assess the tax due (100% penalty if deliberate with concealment).

The penalties/surcharges for late payment of any tax due will be:

  • penalty of 5% of the amount of tax unpaid, generally 1 month after the payment due date (or at the filing date of the relevant return); and
  • further penalties of 5% of any amounts still unpaid at 6 months and 12 months;
  • suspension of late payment penalties where the taxpayer agrees a time to pay arrangement (where a tax debt is paid over time) with HMRC.

2. Private Clients

2.1 Trustees of the Bessie Taube Discretionary Settlement: TC00735

The First Tier Tribunal considered three separate issues in this case:

  • whether a special dividend was capital or income;
  • whether there had been a valid discovery;
  • whether the conduct of the adviser was negligent within S29(4) TMA 1970.

Whether a special dividend was capital or income

The Tribunal found that the special dividend in this case was income not capital:

"47. Accordingly, in this case we consider that we are bound to find that the special dividend is trust income unless in substance the transactions amount to something other than a distribution. We are unable so to find. The special dividend was a cash dividend; it was not a capitalisation as in Bouch v Sproule, nor did it have the features of a capitalisation that were present in Sinclair v Lee. There was no increase of capital of the Company analogous to the issue of bonus shares. In contrast to the position in Bouch v Sproule, money did pass from the Company to its shareholders. The amount of the special dividend was paid in cash to the Trusts and did not remain in their hands as paid up capital.

48. We do not consider that the conversion of the ordinary shares of the Trusts into A shares, and the effect of the special dividend upon the future rights attaching to those shares, can result in the transaction being treated otherwise than as a distribution. Although there was a very substantial diminution in the value of the A shares as a consequence, there was no reduction or return of capital, and we reject the argument that the transaction can be regarded as equivalent to a purchase by the Company of its own shares, and thus as a sale of capital assets by the trustees. Economic equivalence requires more than that the same amount of money is received and that the value of a share, having regard to its future rights, is substantially diminished. An own-share purchase involves both a sale and purchase of shares as a matter of substance, and necessarily entails a cancellation of the shares, and an elimination of all rights including rights to share capital itself.

49. The capital reorganisation in this case is very far from the nature of capital reconstruction in Sinclair v Lee. In these circumstances we find that the substance of the transactions with which we are here concerned was a cash dividend, and the transaction is not to be characterised as anything else."

Whether there had been a valid discovery

Mr Taube was life tenant of the Bessie Taube Trust. If the special dividend was taxable as income then Mr Taube was assessable. However that dividend was not shown on his tax return for the year to 5 April 2001 on the basis that the trustees had been advised that it was a capital payment. HMRC subsequently issued a discovery assessment on Mr Taube against which he appealed. The Tribunal found in favour of HMRC:

"71. In our view the statutory rules permit a discovery either before or after the time for opening an enquiry has expired, the only timing constraint being the time limit for the making of the assessment in section 34. Failure on the part of HMRC to open an enquiry on the basis of an insufficiency discovered prior to the end of the enquiry window cannot shut HMRC out from raising a discovery assessment, unless the taxpayer has alerted HMRC to the insufficiency before that time. The taxpayer has all the protection he needs by being able to provide, before the enquiry window closes, an honest and complete return. If he does so, and provided he has not been fraudulent or negligent, he will be entitled to finality at the end of the enquiry window.

72. For these reasons we conclude that the assessment on Mr Taube was an assertion of a newly-discovered insufficiency in his self assessment, and was accordingly a discovery within the meaning of section 29(1). We should add that if, contrary to our own view, it were to have been necessary for HMRC to show that the assessment was based on something newly discovered outside the enquiry window, we would have had no hesitation in finding on the facts of this case that there was such a discovery. Although the original Trust return had given rise to questions as to the nature of the receipt of the special dividend, and HMRC had considered the consequences for Mr Taube as life tenant were it to have been established that the proper treatment was as trust income, it is clear that up to the end of the enquiry window on 31 January 2003 HMRC were seeking to establish the basis on which it had been claimed by the Bessie Taube Trust that the receipt was of capital. Further information was requested in the letter of 6 December 2002, in the reminder letter of 7 February 2003 and finally in the section 19A information notice issued on 30 April 2003. It is abundantly clear that the view of HMRC that there was a probable insufficiency in Mr Taube's self assessment (as distinct from a mere suspicion or possible insufficiency) crystallised only after receipt of that information and after the legal analysis had been the subject of debate with the Trust's advisers. We have no doubt therefore that even if it were correct that there must be a discovery after the end of the enquiry window (which we do not accept for the reasons we have given), on the facts of this case that test would comfortably have been passed.

73. We now turn to consider whether the condition in s 29(5) is fulfilled. If it is, then the assessment will have been validly made. In the circumstances of this case what we have to determine is whether, at the time when an officer of HMRC ceased to be entitled to enquire into Mr Taube's individual return (31 January 2003), that officer could not have been reasonably expected, on the basis of the information available to him before that time, to have been aware of the insufficiency in Mr Taube's self assessment, on account of the omission of the trust income.

74. As Mr James recognised, in normal circumstances the fact that no information was included in Mr Taube's return in respect of the special dividend would be fatal to Mr Taube's case. It is clear from s 29(6) following Langham v Veltema that the information in question must emanate from the taxpayer or someone acting on the taxpayer's behalf. The list of categories of information in s 29(6) is exhaustive. In particular, s 29(6)(d)(i) does not attribute to the inspector information which is not reasonably to be inferred from information within s 29(6)(a) to (c). The matters set out in those paragraphs are all categories of information actually supplied by the taxpayer or his agent. The only information provided by Mr Taube or anyone acting on his behalf was his return, which omitted any reference to the special dividend. There was no possibility that information regarding the payment of the special dividend could have been inferred from Mr Taube's return.

75. Whilst recognising the difficulty presented by the plain words of s 29(6), as construed by the Court of Appeal in Langham v Veltema, Mr James argued that the situation of a trust receipt is a very particular one that necessarily falls outside the normal rule, and that this case ought therefore to be distinguished from Langham v Veltema. He argued, pointing to s 8A TMA, that it is the trustees' return which must return all income for the purpose of establishing the amounts in which not only the trustees, but also the settlor and, crucially, the beneficiaries are chargeable to income tax and capital gains tax. If a receipt is income, it is trust income and is returnable as such.

76. In support of his argument Mr James referred to Mr Taube's tax return for 2000/01. In that return Question 7 asked: "Did you receive or are you deemed to have income from a trust [or] settlement ...?" In the Notes on Trusts accompanying a return for that period the following instructions were given: "...The trustee will be able to tell you which types of income have been received on your behalf." Mr James sought to argue that the return required by an individual with an interest in possession operated at the relevant time not by reference to entitlement to income (and here he contrasted language in the 2010 return and accompanying notes) but by reference to income "received" or, at the very least, notified by the trustees to the beneficiary.

77. We reject Mr James' submissions in this regard. None of the materials referred to by him in this connection can support his argument. It is quite evident on the face of these materials that even in 2000/01 an individual income beneficiary was required to render a return based on entitlement to income and not on mere receipt or notification. That at all events was (and remains) the law, irrespective of any guidance that might have been given. Mr Taube was himself required to make a return of his income, including the trust income to which he was entitled, under s 8 TMA, and to include in that return a self assessment to income tax. This he was obliged to do notwithstanding the concurrent responsibility on the part of the trustees of the Bessie Taube Trust to make a trustee's return under section 8A. The fact that this concurrent trustee's return is for the purpose of establishing the chargeability of the beneficiaries (as well as the trustees and the settlor) does not affect the construction of section 29(6). That provision is, as was clearly decided in Langham v Veltema, exhaustive, and there is no warrant for extending its meaning on account of s 8A to include returns made by or on behalf of the trustees as well as those made by or on behalf of the individual himself. If Parliament had wished to include trust returns as part of the information relevant to the making of a discovery assessment on an individual beneficiary, not only could they have done so, in our view they would have done so, as they did in relation to taxpayers carrying on a trade, profession or business in partnership where it is provided by s 29(7)(a)(ii) that the references in s 29(6) to the taxpayer's return includes a reference to the relevant partnership return".

Whether the conduct of the adviser was negligent within S29(4) TMA 1970

A firm of solicitors had advised the trustees of both trusts that there was a strong argument for saying that the special dividend should be treated as a capital payment. HMRC argued that that advice was negligent for the purposes of S29(4) TMA. That section would be satisfied if the insufficiency in Mr Taube's return was attributable to fraudulent or negligent conduct on the part of Mr Taube or a person acting on his behalf.

The Tribunal found for the taxpayer on this point saying:

"In our view, the expression "person acting on ... behalf" is not apt to describe a mere adviser who only provides advice to the taxpayer or to someone who is acting on the taxpayer's behalf. In our judgement the expression connotes a person who takes steps that the taxpayer himself could take, or would otherwise be responsible for taking. Such steps will commonly include steps involving third parties, but will not necessarily do so. Examples would in our view include completing a return, filing a return, entering into correspondence with HMRC, providing documents and information to HMRC and seeking external advice as to the legal and tax position of the taxpayer. The person must represent, and not merely provide advice to, the taxpayer."

3. PAYE and Employee Benefits

3.1 Appointed day and amendments re PAYE payment penalties under FA09 Sch 56

Statutory Instrument 2011/132 makes amendments to the PAYE payment penalty provisions of FA09 Sch56 and makes 25 January 2011 the commencement day for them.

4. Business tax

4.1 Outstanding Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR) for partners and partnerships

HMRC has issued the following note.

"HMRC is aware that some existing partnerships may not yet have received Unique Taxpayer References (UTR) for new partners who need to submit a timely, fully complete, partnership return.

Some new partners who expect to file their individual tax return by 31 January 2011 because they have other income also may not yet have the partnership UTR (which they must enter on their tax return).

This message covers partners and partnerships who:

  • choose to file a paper tax return and applied for a UTR in plenty of time to meet the 31 October deadline, but did not receive the UTR in time
  • must file paper returns because the circumstances fall within the HMRC list of 'specials and exclusions' and HMRC has agreed that they will be unable to file online but have until 31 January 2011 to file a paper return;
  • file online and expect to do this by 31 January but are still waiting for UTRs.

If this applies to your client please file the relevant tax return as soon as you receive the UTR(s) and make a claim to 'reasonable excuse' if the return is late because of the delay in receiving the UTR. Follow the link below to download a form HMRC provides to help you make your claim.

Customers who claim reasonable excuse should give details of the dates when the UTR was requested, the UTR was received and they filed their completed return. Each case will be considered on its merits but, where HMRC receive the complete return without any unnecessary delay after the customer received the UTR, the claim will be treated sympathetically. Where there is time to prevent this, HMRC will not send out a penalty notice."

4.2 Introduction to EIS

HMRC has republished the third edition of its booklet 'Introduction to the Enterprise Investment Scheme'.

4.3 Draft HMRC guidance on simplification of corporate capital gains

HMRC has published its draft guidance on the simplification of corporate capital gains covering three areas:

  • Degrouping
  • Value-shifting
  • Losses following a change in ownership.

From discussions at an open day with HMRC it appears that the intention of the degrouping legislation is that where a company leaves a group using a share for share exchange and the Substantial Shareholdings Exemption (SSE) does not apply, degrouping charges could arise. Where the SSE applies to this situation, then there would be no degrouping charge – as the degrouping gain will be deemed consideration for the disposal, but will be exempt because of the SSE.

In relation to degrouping the new rules permit a division of a company to be parcelled up for disposal in a new company and where the SSE rules apply, there will be no degrouping charge. However the SSE does not affect any charge that might arise under the intangible asset regime, so that where an intangible asset (subject to the intangible asset regime) of a divisional activity is parcelled up into a company for sale, there could still be a degrouping charge under the CTA09 intangible asset regime (as both companies concerned will not have left the group together).

The proposed new TCGA92 s31 provides that consideration for a chargeable gain or allowable loss on a disposal of shares by a company can be increased where, amongst other conditions the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the transaction is tax avoidance. However there is an exception where the arrangements consist wholly or mainly of the making of an exempt distribution (new s31(1)(c)). The guidance clarifies that where a capital reduction is effected prior to paying an exempt distribution, HMRC are unlikely to view this as indicating a main tax avoidance purpose so the value shifting provisions would not apply. However the depreciatory transaction provisions (TCGA s176) would apply to eliminate any allowable loss otherwise arising from a depreciatory transaction (see example 7 of the draft guidance).

Example 5 indicates that where a subsidiary company which has distributable reserves, but no cash, borrows money in order to pay a pre-sale dividend, HMRC will regard this as a value shifting exercise triggering the anti-avoidance.

4.4 Icebreaker I LLP – revenue nature of film expenditure

The Upper Tier Tribunal has amended the First Tier Tribunal's decision concerning whether certain expenditure in a film and TV production venture was regarded as revenue or capital expenditure. While increasing the amount of deductible expenditure decided by the FTT, the majority of the expenditure in question remains non-revenue expenditure, though the decision of the FTT was set aside and revised as follows:

  1. Disallowing the deduction of the sum of £1,064,000 as not being a disbursement or expense wholly and exclusively expended for the purposes of Icebreaker s trade within the meaning of section 74(1)(a). The same tax effect on revenue expenditure as the FTT decided.
  2. Allowing the entirety of the deduction of £209,866 under section 74(1)(a) as a disbursement or expense wholly and exclusively expended for the purposes of Icebreaker's trade. This reverses the decision of the FTT.
  3. Allowing the deduction of £120,000 paid under the Administration Agreement under section 74(1)(a) as a disbursement or expense wholly and exclusively expended for the purposes of Icebreaker's trade. This changes in part the decision of the FTT.
  4. Disallowing the deduction of £50,000 paid under the Advisory Agreement as a prepayment of allowable expenses to be incurred in future tax years. This disallows the treatment of this expenditure as revenue as the FTT decided.


5.1 VAT and single or multiple supplies

The Upper Tribunal has reversed the decision of the First Tier Tribunal concerning the VAT status of party services which included the use of a hall. The case considered whether the provision of a hall for children's parties and associated catering and party services were a single exempt supply of letting property, or a single standard rated supply of party services or two separate supplies (one of property and one of party services). The pricing for the parties was on a price per head basis, subject to a minimum fee of £100, and the First Tier Tribunal held that there were two supplies, one of exempt property services and one of taxable party services. The Upper Tribunal has rejected this and found for HMRC's original contention that the pricing for the services were such that they could not be identified with a right to occupy land and were therefore a single standard rated supply of party services.

5.2 Record keeping requirements for Excise Duties

A draft statutory instrument has been published to bring into effect on 1 April 2011 FA(No 3) 10 Sch13 which amends the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 record keeping requirements (the form of records, as the time limit for keeping them remains six years), time limits for assessments and claims (moving the time limit from 3 to 4 years), and HMRC powers of inspection.

5.3 Revenue Brief 5/11 and 3/11, change of use and option to tax provisions

Amendments to the Change of Use provisions have been made following initial consultation.

  • With effect from 1 March 2011, there will no longer be two adjustment mechanisms (each with its own rules on how to calculate and apply a tax charge) to apply to the two sets of circumstances where a 'change in use' occurs. Instead, there will be a single adjustment mechanism to be applied in all circumstances. It will be based on: the amount of VAT that would have been chargeable on the original supply (or supplies) had the building in question not been eligible for the zero rate;
  • the proportion of the building that is affected by the change in use; and
  • the number of complete months that the building has been used solely for a qualifying purpose prior to the change in use.

The date by which the refinements to the disapplication of the option tax rules and provisions where the grantor occupies minor parts of the building, and where ATM's are a factor, is 1 March 2011.

5.4 VAT and the definition of 'building materials'

In the case of John Price the First Tier Tribunal determined that the roller blinds installed in a building were 'building materials' (see VATA94 Sch8 Group 5 note 22) and qualified for refund of input VAT under the DIY scheme.

HMRC has issued a Brief clarifying that their view remains unchanged in that roller blinds (and other 'window furniture') are not 'building materials' as defined and confirming it will not be changing its policy. The Tribunal chairman did not hear any evidence on the point of what is and what is not a 'building material' for VAT purposes but reached his conclusion as a matter of judicial notice, that is, as a common sense fact.

Given the small amount of VAT at stake in this particular case, HMRC will not be appealing this decision further.

The UK provisions appear to be the UK's interpretation of the EU VAT directive provisions at Directive 2006/112 article 176 which states that VAT shall in no circumstances be deductible in respect of expenditure which is not strictly business expenditure, such as that on luxuries, amusements or entertainment. In the case of housebuilders who typically include certain fixtures in newly built properties to aid their sale, we are aware there is some debate as to whether the UK's implementation of this provision of EU law is strictly correct (note 22 to sch8 group 5 specifically prohibits input VAT recovery on certain electrical and gas appliances and carpets, yet in today's environment these might be considered standard and not luxury items in a property).

6. Tax Publications

Briefing Note:

Corporate capital gains - FINANCE BILL 2011: Draft clauses

This Briefing Note discusses amendments proposed in draft Finance Bill 2011 for changes to the taxation of corporate capital gains

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Richard Mannion
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.