UK: Weekly Tax Update – Tuesday 3 January 2012

Last Updated: 9 January 2012
Article by Richard Mannion

1. General news

1.1. Public Accounts Committee report into HMRC's handling of tax disputes

The Public Account Committee (PAC) has released a hard-hitting report criticising HMRC's handling of tax disputes.

The PAC's conclusions and recommendations are as follows:

1. The Department's refusal to disclose taxpayer information prevents proper scrutiny of the process for reaching tax settlements with large companies. We accept there is a need for confidentiality to protect taxpayers, but this must not be used as a cloak to protect the Department from scrutiny. It is absurd that we have been forced to rely on information in the media to find out about cases that raise concerns, and of course we only know about cases on which information has been published in the media. The Department was not able to point to an absolute statutory bar on disclosure of information about specific cases. Its withholding of information is in fact a policy decision taken by Commissioners. This approach fails to give proper regard to HMRC's duty to assist the Public Accounts Committee in examining whether or not the Department is giving best value for money. There is less justification for keeping tax information about large corporations confidential than information about individuals. The Department must set out in greater detail its policy reasons for not disclosing information about specific corporate taxpayers. It must explain the circumstances in which it would consider disclosure and it must set out how it will fulfill its statutory obligations to account for its actions to Parliament.

2. The evidence of the Department's senior officials fails to give us any confidence in the way large settlements are reached. The Permanent Secretary for Tax and the Department's General Counsel and Solicitor failed to answer our questions about specific cases in a spirit of openness. Some of the evidence they provided about the exact order of events, the extent of the Permanent Secretary for Tax's personal involvement in negotiations and whether legal advice was sought and acted upon was imprecise, inconsistent and potentially misleading. Furthermore, the Permanent Secretary for Tax was less than clear and consistent in the evidence he first gave to the Treasury Select Committee and then to the Public Accounts Committee. Accounting Officers are accountable to this Committee and we expect precise, open and comprehensive answers to our questions. Any failure to do so is a failure to perform a core responsibility and should be treated as such by the Cabinet Secretary.

3. The Department chose to depart from normal governance procedures in several cases, which allowed Commissioners to sign off on settlements that they themselves negotiated. HMRC execute hugely important functions on behalf of the taxpayer and the Government. It is absolutely necessary that the officials responsible for and engaged in this work should have the necessary skills, qualifications and experience to fulfill these vital roles. For four of the largest settlements examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the processes applied did not recognise the importance of clear separation between those negotiating and those approving settlements, and we are not convinced of the soundness of decisions made by Commissioners in these cases. The Department has since put in place new governance arrangements that seek to separate the negotiation and authorisation roles. The recent appointment of two new Commissioners widens the pool of Commissioners who have the expertise to make an informed judgment in signing off settlements. However, this does not in itself guarantee there will be effective separation of roles or proper accountability for decisions reached, not least because the two new Commissioners are existing members of the Department's senior team. The Department must ensure that its revised procedures to separate out the roles of those involved in settling tax disputes are applied to all cases without exception. The Department should report back to us, as promised by the Cabinet Secretary, before Christmas.

4. Governance procedures have lacked the independence and transparency needed to provide sufficient assurance to Parliament. Tax settlements with large companies are inevitably complex and involve the exercise of judgment. Parliament needs assurance that these settlements are appropriate and good value for the taxpayer. We welcome the Department's proposals to introduce an independent assessor, or assessors, to sit alongside Commissioners, who would carry out independent review of settlement proposals. Appropriate rules need to be established which will ensure that all settlements over £100m are assessed independently and that a random sample of those over £10m are assessed independency each year. It is important that the new role is demonstrably independent and increases accountability to Parliament, and should be established in statute. For speed, we accept that the role should be set up in shadow form, but it should be formalised in legislation as quickly as possible. Independent assessors should report annually to Parliament on their work, perhaps in a statement contained in the Department's annual report and accounts. This should include aggregate information on the cases in which they were involved and a report on any settlements where they have identified concerns.

5. The Department's failure to comply with its own processes resulted in a substantial amount of money being lost to the Exchequer. In one case, a mistake was not picked up until too late because the Department failed to follow its own governance procedures. The C&AG told us that this resulted in a loss of up to £8 million in interest forgone. We have since received evidence from a whistleblower that the total value of interest payable in respect of this particular settlement could be as high as £20 million. When the error was eventually picked up, the Department decided it would not reopen negotiations. We are astonished that in this case the decision to settle was taken without legal advice and that the Department did not even take the most basic step of making its own note of meetings with the company concerned, relying instead on the record kept by the company. The Department must ensure that it has applied all relevant governance checks to each settlement before finalising them with taxpayers. It must also consult legal advisors before settling cases in litigation and make sure it keeps its own accurate and complete records of key meetings with companies. We remain concerned that the decision was taken not to reopen this case when the 'mistake' was uncovered, and we were not given good reasons for HMRC not reopening this case.

6. Those at the top of the Department have not taken personal responsibility for serious errors. The failure to apply proper governance processes is the latest in a series of errors made by the Department in recent years, including the debacle over PAYE and tax credits. There appears to be little or no sense of personal accountability when things go wrong. It is right that an individual was held accountable for his role in the mistake that led to the loss of interest on a tax liability, but there also needs to be stringent accountability at the top of the Department for designing and operating a system in which such mistakes could occur. We expect leaders to take responsibility for both systemic issues and for specific mistakes, for which they are accountable.

7. The Department has left itself open to suspicion that its relationships with large companies are too cosy. The Permanent Secretary for Tax attended a significant number of informal meetings over lunch and dinner with large companies with whom HMRC was settling complex tax disputes, when formal HMRC minutes were not necessarily taken. We were told this was part of the Department's overall approach to relationship management. We accept that senior tax officials need to be accessible to major stakeholders and we welcome the fact that details of hospitality are published, but this information is only meaningful if supported by transparency about the Permanent Secretary for Tax's involvement in settling disputes with these companies. It appears that when deciding whether or not to accept hospitality, not enough attention was paid to the risk that a conflict of interest might be perceived. The Department must exercise better judgment over how it manages its relationships with large companies, to ensure it avoids the perception of conflicts of interest.

8. The Department is not being even handed in its treatment of taxpayers. It is unfair that large companies can settle their tax disputes with the advice of professionals at less than the full amount due and that they have been allowed up to 10 years to pay their tax liabilities, while small businesses and individuals on tax credits are not allowed similar leeway. The Department has promised to look into the treatment of these groups of taxpayers in terms of its fairness and reasonableness. It should report back to us on any actions taken to address the wider policy or process issues identified as a result of its examination. news/hmrc-tax-disputes-report/

HMRC subsequently published the following response:

"HMRC rejects the conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee that there are systemic failures in the management of tax disputes. The report is based on partial information, inaccurate opinion and some misunderstanding of facts.

HMRC's internal processes are robust and this was confirmed by a recent review by the National Audit Office of large business settlements. We agree that public confidence in our processes is important, and as we have already informed the Public Accounts Committee we propose to make further improvements to our governance and to increase transparency about our work with large business. We also welcome the further review that the National Audit Office is to carry out as an opportunity to confirm this and clear up the concerns about foregone millions."

In response to the specific criticisms, HMRC's spokesman said:

"1. "specific and systemic failures"

"We acknowledge that a mistake was made in one settlement and explained how this arose. We reject the suggestion that this is evidence of systemic failure. This assertion, based on untested, leaked information, is without foundation. "

2. "more than £25 billion outstanding in unresolved tax bills"

"We explained to the Committee and again in a letter to the Committee Chair in November that this figure is a ballpark estimate of maximum potential tax liabilities, before a full investigation of the specific facts has taken place, and before applying any reliefs or allowances. It is not actual tax either owed or unpaid. In many cases, when HMRC has looked at the full facts it becomes clear that there is no further liability at all. Tax under consideration is an administrative tool to help us to focus our resources on cases where potential tax liabilities appear to be greatest. It is not tax owed."

3. "many millions of pounds may be lost to the public purse"

HMRC's job is to bring in the tax that's owed and that's what we're doing. We collected a record £468 billion in taxes last year, including more than £13 billion extra from our compliance work. We drew the NAO's attention to an error in a single case which they then estimated to be between £5 and £8 million.

4. "a mistake led to a potential £20 million of interest on a tax liability not being collected"

We do not agree this figure. We drew the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General to an error, which he then estimated as between £5 million and £8 million.

5. "it is extremely disappointing that senior HMRC officials were not prepared to cooperate with our inquiry in a spirit of openness. We accept that there is a need for confidentiality to protect individual taxpayers, but this must not be used as a cloak to protect the Department from scrutiny...It is absurd that we had to rely on the media and the actions of a whistleblower to find out about the details of individual settlements."

Senior HMRC officials sought to be co-operative by providing as much information as possible within the legal constraints of taxpayer confidentiality under which they work. Taxpayer confidentiality is a legal requirement, fundamental to tax administration in the UK and across the world. Parliamentary scrutiny is delivered via the NAO to whom HMRC provide unfettered access to all their papers."

6. "Parliament and the public have legitimate concerns that large companies are being treated more favourably than ordinary taxpayers... "

HMRC treats all taxpayers even-handedly, supporting the majority who comply with their duty to pay their taxes, and cracking down hard on evaders, avoiders and fraudsters.

It is wrong to suggest that HMRC officials are too lenient on large businesses.

Large businesses pay around 60 per cent of total UK tax receipts, and account for more than half of the £13.9 billion additional compliance revenues that we brought in last year.

Large business tax settlements are a vital part of how HMRC secures tax revenues for the country and without them Britain's public finances would be seriously damaged. HMRC's large business strategy is now being adopted by other tax administrations around the world.

7. "in several cases, HMRC chose to depart from its normal governance procedures. It is extraordinary that the same officials who negotiated deals also approved them."

We have already informed the Committee of the action we have taken to ensure that in any case where an HMRC Commissioner has been involved in negotiations, the settlement decision is made under a 'dual key' approach by two different Commissioners. We have also written to the Committee with proposals to further strengthen our internal governance. These further changes will be agreed with our new Chief Executive in the New Year."

1.2. HMRC will be accepting Faster Payments

HMRC can now to accept payments made using the banking industry's Faster Payments Service (FPS). This provides for faster electronic payments, typically via internet or telephone banking, enabling them to be processed on the same or next day.

This could reduce the time between monies leaving an account and being received by HMRC. But there could be limitations imposed by the paying bank so before making a payment a check should be made to confirm that the bank or building society:

  • has made the service available;
  • whether there are any single transaction or daily limits on the amount that can be paid;
  • their latest cut off times for making a payment.

When making a payment to HMRC please make sure to always use the correct bank account details and reference number.

You can find further information by following the links below.

1.3. Discovery and rebated fees: HMRC v Lansdowne Partners Limited Partnership

This case considered whether rebates of fees to individual partners of Lansdowne Partners Limited Partnership (LPLP) were deductible in computing profits of the partnership, and whether HMRC had raised a discovery assessment within the required time limits.

LPLP is a fund manager managing investments in open ended investment companies (OEICs). Lansdowne Partners International Ltd was appointed as investment manager of the OEICs, but subcontracted management to LPLP. As envisaged in the investment prospectus (though this was not a guaranteed term of investment), LPLP rebated its share of investment management fee income to individual partners based on their investment in the funds under management. When the partnership submitted its partnership statement for the year 2004/05 these rebates were treated as deductible expenditure in computing its taxable profit. On 27 August 2008 HMRC notified the partnership that it had amended the partnership statement for the tax year 2004/05 by adding back an estimate of the payments made to partners when arriving at the partnership profit. The partnership appealed against the amended assessment. HMRC appealed against the General Commissioner's decision that the rebates were tax deductible and that HMRC was out of time in making the assessment.

The High Court (Mr Justice Lewison) determined that as the rebate was not a contractual term of investment, there was a duality of purpose to the rebate (while LPLP was due investment management fees for services supplied to the funds, it made rebates at its discretion to the partners), so they were not wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the trade.

However in relation to discovery, the High Court upheld the General Commissioners' decision. Justice Lewison commented in respect of the Langham v Veltema case that:

  • "Awareness" is the officer's awareness of an actual insufficiency in the self-assessment in question, rather than an awareness that he should do something to check whether there is an insufficiency;
  • the test whether an officer could reasonably have been expected to be aware of an actual insufficiency is an objective test;
  • the sources of information referred to in section 29 (6) TMA1970 are the only sources of information to be taken into account in deciding whether an officer ought reasonably to have been aware of the actual insufficiency;
  • the information in question must clearly alert the officer to the insufficiency of the assessment.

In relation to this case he commented that the actual insufficiency was an insufficiency in respect of a particular period. In his judgment, that information provided by or on behalf of the representative partner must clearly alert HMRC to an insufficiency in the partnership return for a particular period.

In relation to the source of information, he commented that the statute requires that the representative partner should notify HMRC in writing of both the existence of the information and also its relevance to the "situation mentioned in subsection (1)". In other words the information must clearly alert HMRC to the relevance of the information to the insufficiency in the year in question. However, he did not consider that the statute requires that the existence of the information and its relevance must be contained in the same written communication. He thought it would be sufficient if one communication notified the officer of the existence of the information and another notified the officer of its relevance.

On that basis he agreed with the General Commissioners that on 31 January 2007, on the basis of the information notified to HMRC in writing by or on behalf of the representative partner before 31 January 2007, HMRC should have been aware of an insufficiency in the partnership return for the year of assessment 2004/2005.

In this particular case there had been a meeting in February 2006 and correspondence in March 2006 between the representative partner and an HMRC employment compliance officer where the rebates had been mentioned and the officer asked for the partners' personal tax office details. Justice Lewison considered that the General Commissioners were entitled to place weight on the fact that the HMRC officer had written with reference to the rebates and that he would pass the information on to the officers dealing with the partners and that it would be for those officers to raise further enquiries if they wished to.

He therefore concluded that since the discovery assessment was out of time, even though the rebated fees were incorrectly treated as a deduction, HMRC's appeal must be dismissed.

HMRC appealed the out of time point and Lansdowne cross-appealed on whether the rebated fees should be taxable, and if they were whether the payment to the partners should be deductible.

The Court of Appeal (CA) has now heard the appeals and given its judgement. Lord Justice Moses summarised the questions for decision as follows:

  1. whether the sums, described as 'rebates', were correctly excluded from LPLP's statement of income or profits?
  2. if not, whether they were deductible from those profits?
  3. if not, whether the Revenue was entitled to amend LPLP's partnership tax return?

The view of the CA was that "There can be no warrant for treating LPLP as a legal entity separate from its partners". The rebates to the partners were not applied wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the partnership's trade and should not have been deducted from the partnership profits.

That left the third question to be decided.

The success of the HMRC's appeal as to whether the discovery assessment in May 2008 was out of time rested on whether, in January 2007, a hypothetical inspector having before him the partnership return and statement, the letter from the representative partner to the inspector dated 30 March 2006 and the note of the meeting held on 22 February 2006 would have been aware of "an actual insufficiency" in the declared profit. The CA answered that in the affirmative taking account of the following:

  • The income of LPLP consisted of management and performance fees.
  • There had been deducted from that income what was described as 'rebates'.
  • 'Rebates' had been paid to limited partners.
  • Mackinlay v Arthur Young McLelland Moores [1990] 2 AC 239 had established that all payments to partners should be included in gross income and were not, generally, deductible for tax purposes.
  • There was no indication on the face of the accounts or in the letter to suggest any special treatment of 'rebates' paid to limited partners either by omission from the gross income or in their deduction therefrom.

The point was that the hypothetical inspector is not required to resolve points of law, nor need he forecast and discount what the response of the taxpayer may be. It is enough that the information made available to him justifies the amendment to the tax return he then seeks to make. Any disputes of fact or law can then be resolved by the usual processes.

HMRC had contended that mere awareness of the fact that rebates had been deducted is not the same as awareness that the amount of profits stated were insufficient. Lord Justice Moses objected to that argument on the basis that the letter to the employment compliance officer containing information, on the basis of which an officer ought to have been aware that the rebates had been excluded or deducted from the profits, arrived more than 10 months before the expiry of the time limited for opening an enquiry. That was more than sufficient time to obtain further information as to the taxpayers' justification for exclusion or deduction and to form a legal view as to the lawfulness of exclusion or deduction.

Lord Justice Moses expressed "polite disapproval" of the way the legislation was interpreted in the cases of Corbally-Stauntom and Patullo:

"I also wish to express polite disapproval of any judicial paraphrase of the wording of the condition at Section 30B(6) or Section 29(5). I think there is a danger in substituting wording appropriate to standards of proof for the statutory condition. The statutory condition turns on the situation of which the officer could reasonably have been expected to be aware. Awareness is a matter of perception and of understanding, not of conclusion. I wish, therefore, to express doubt as to the approach of the Special Commissioner in Corbally- Stourton v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2008] STC (SCD) 907 and of the Outer House in R (on the application of Patullo) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2010] STC 107, namely, that to be aware of a situation is the same as concluding that it is more probable than not. The statutory context of the condition is the grant of a power to raise an assessment. In that context, the question is whether the taxpayer has provided sufficient information to an officer, with such understanding as he might reasonably be expected to have, to justify the exercise of the power to raise the assessment to make good the insufficiency".

2. Private Clients

2.1. Life assurance bonds: TC01627 - Martin Hedley Rogers

The Appellant invested in an offshore life assurance bond which was subdivided into 20 individual policies or "segments". Generally it is possible to withdraw up to 5% of the original sum invested each year without triggering a tax liability under the "chargeable events" provisions, but the Appellant's circumstances changed and he withdrew far more than that during the relevant year. HMRC therefore sought to make him liable for income tax on the excess, on the basis that he had effected partial surrenders of all 20 of the segments in the bond.

The Appellant disputed his liability, arguing that in fact he had totally surrendered a number of segments, and partially surrendered just one segment.

When instructing the life assurance company, to withdraw funds from the bond, no reference was made as to whether it should have been a partial surrender across all the policies or a number of full surrenders with a possible partial surrender of one policy. The life assurance company's paperwork and administration left a lot to be desired and did not appear to make any distinction between the policies treating the investments within the bond wrapper as a single entity. In addition, the policy documentation referred to being able to make partial surrenders by either method but did not specify which would take precedence.

The FTT found that the contractual documents were not sufficiently clear and that the evidence of what actually took place was insufficient to enable any conclusion to be reached. In the absence of finding the answer from these considerations the FTT referred to the general legal principle of "equality is equity" and that the source of the monies should be treated as have come equally across all the policies, ie by way of a series of partial surrenders.

The partial surrender treatment gives rise to a greater tax charge and in dismissing the appeal the FTT echoed the comments of Judge Nowlan in Shanthiratnam about the "frankly ludicrous" nature of the resulting tax liability and provide a useful note that "when parties are advised to invest in complex financial products for tax planning purposes, the outcome illustrates all too clearly the fact that full advice needs to be given as to all the implications of that decision and where any associated traps and pitfalls may lie."

2.2. Liechtenstein Tax Agreement

A number of improvements to the Memorandum of Understanding have been agreed between the Liechtenstein Government and HMRC regarding the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility (LDF):

The New "Confirmation of Relevance" to Simplify the LDF Registration Process

One of the conditions for using the LDF in order to disclose unpaid tax is that you must already own or acquire qualifying assets in Liechtenstein, but from 1 December 2011, UK taxpayers will need to provide HMRC with a simple Confirmation of Relevance (COR) to register.

The COR will be issued by the Liechtenstein financial intermediary as proof their UK clients has acquired a qualifying asset or established a connection with Liechtenstein's financial centre. This will streamline the registration process, providing certainty as to what is needed.

Deadline for Notifications extended to 31 March 2012

Liechtenstein's financial intermediaries are required to tell their UK clients they must meet their UK tax obligations. HMRC and Liechtenstein have agreed to a three month extension of the notification deadline to 31 March 2012 due to the complex steps in ensuring all UK residents affected are identified and the larger than anticipated number of people likely to receive a letter.

Self-Certification Option to Demonstrate UK Tax Compliance

HMRC and Liechtenstein, working closely with the Trustee and Bankers Associations have agreed a process which will enable some UK residents who are notified under the LDF to self certify in certain circumstances. This will reduce costs and simplify the process but is only available to those investors who can demonstrate they are tax compliant. Further Frequently asked Questions and answers will be published by HMRC to clarify the procedure.

2.3. US reporting requirements: Statement of Foreign Financial Assets

The Internal Revenue Service has released the form 8938, and associated instructions, by which US return filers are to report their non-US financial assets during 2011 under the reporting requirement introduced in March 2010. The details should be noted and taken account of when collating the information for 2011 US returns.

Foreign financial assets generally include the following assets:

  • any financial account maintained a by a foreign financial institution, and;
  • to the extent held for investment and not held in a financial account, any stock or securities issued by someone that is not a U.S. person, any interest in a foreign entity, and any financial instrument or contract with an issuer or counterparty that is not a US person.

The reporting thresholds requiring filing US taxpayers living outside of the US are:

  • single taxpayers/married filing separately: $200,000 on the last day of the year or $300,000 anytime during the year;
  • married filing jointly living abroad: $400,000 on the last day of the year or $600,000 at anytime during the year.

The limits requiring filing for taxpayers living within the US are:

  • single taxpayers/married filing separately: $50,000 on the last day of the year or $75,000 anytime during the year;
  • married filing jointly: $100,000 on the last day of the year or $150,000 at anytime during the year.,,id=248113,00.html

2.4. Conditions for raising a discovery assessment – DW Hankinson [2011] EWCA Civ 1566

The Court of Appeal has agreed with the First Tier and Upper Tier Tribunals and rejected the taxpayer's appeal against a discovery assessment.

The Taxpayer appealed on the basis that where a tax return had been submitted in accordance with the Taxes Act, the conditions mentioned in TMA s29(3), (4) and (5) for raising a discovery assessment, were preconditions acting as a safeguard to the apparent random power to raise an assessment 12 months after the submission of the tax return inherent in the self assessment regime.

The Court of Appeal rejected this view, and concluded that if the conditions in s29(4) and s29(5) were to be determined before assessments were raised, this would have been specified in the legislation. They also commented that whether those conditions were satisfied was to be judged as a matter of fact, and that the ability of an officer to raise an assessment depended on the opinion of the officer concerned, and was subject to the requirements of subsections 2 (return submitted on the basis of prevailing practice) and 3 (referring to the conditions in subsections 4 and 5). The Court of Appeal therefore concluded the earlier Tribunals had reached the right conclusions for the right reasons.

3. IHT & Trusts 3.1. Trust Modernisation Project

HMRC IHT, CGT & Trusts Policy has confirmed to the Chartered Institute of Taxation the long outstanding open consultation point on the possible abolition of the tax pool and introduction of income streaming is effectively over:

"As you are probably aware during 2006 there were signals that tax streaming and abolition of the tax pool were proving difficult to fit within legislation and practice and that the intention was to undertake some further work with a view to tackling these issues at a later date.

We are not aware of any further public announcements regarding this, but we have not been undertaking any such work in recent years."

HMRC's initial proposals were set out in a consultation document issued at the time of the 2003 PBR.

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.