UK: Is It All Now Transparent? UK Supreme Court Case On Delaware LLCs Leaves Open Questions On Entity Classification For UK Tax Purposes

The UK Supreme Court delivered an unexpected final judgment on 1 July 2015 in the long-running case of Anson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2015] UKSC 44. Reversing the decisions of the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the original 2010 ruling of the First Tier Tribunal ("FTT") in deciding that Mr Anson, a UK resident member of HarbourVest Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("LLC"), was entitled to credit against UK tax for US tax borne on the LLC's profits.

The decision raises questions over the status of HMRC's long-standing practice that Delaware LLCs are generally not fiscally transparent for UK tax purposes.

UK Entity Classification and the FTT Decision

Cases relating to foreign entity classification for UK tax purposes are few and far between. Long-standing UK tax authority ("HMRC") practice is based largely on the 1998 Court of Appeal decision in Memec plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1998] STC 754, another case concerning foreign tax credits. Broadly, this practice requires the evaluation of several characteristics of the entity in question (set out below) under local commercial law, and a comparison with the equivalent characteristics of English and Scottish partnerships (which are fiscally transparent, albeit that a Scottish partnership has separate legal personality) on the one hand and of a UK company (which is fiscally opaque) on the other. The need for a local commercial law analysis of often very fine points sharply contrasts with practice in other jurisdictions. For instance, the United States specifically provides that a Delaware LLC with more than one member is by default treated as a partnership for US federal income tax purposes, unless an election is made so that it is instead treated as an opaque corporation.

The UK courts establish relevant points of foreign law as a matter of fact, based on expert evidence heard before and evaluated by the initial fact-finding tribunal, in this case the FTT. Notably, this approach led the House of Lords to give contrasting decisions in the two Archer-Shee cases in the 1920s and '30s (two different cases, because each case covered different tax years), having had access to evidence on New York trust law in the second case that was not available in the first. Given the importance of the fact-finding exercise carried out by the FTT, and that the Supreme Court has now upheld its decision, a brief description follows of the relevant aspects of the FTT decision.

The FTT had heard evidence from expert witnesses on Delaware law for Mr Anson and HMRC as to the characteristics of HarbourVest Partners LLC under Delaware commercial law. The most significant characteristic for Mr Anson's case – on which the parties' experts disagreed – was whether an LLC member was entitled under Delaware law to the profits of the LLC as they arose. For completeness, other factors evaluated in accordance with the practice mandated by Memec included: the separate legal personality of the LLC; whether members' interests served a function analogous to share capital in a company; whether the business was carried on by the LLC or by its members; whether the LLC or its members were responsible for debts incurred in the business; and whether the LLC's assets belonged beneficially to the LLC or to its members.

The LLC received investment management fees from a number of venture capital funds. It was agreed that, under Delaware law, the fees when paid belonged beneficially to the LLC and not to the members. However, Delaware statute requires the allocation of the LLC's profits and losses to members, and includes the member's share of profits and losses within the definition of the member's LLC interest. The FTT agreed with Mr Anson's expert in finding that these Delaware statutory provisions, combined with the terms of the LLC agreement of HarbourVest Partners LLC meant that, notwithstanding the beneficial ownership by the LLC of its assets, the members were indeed automatically entitled to the profits of the LLC's business as they arose. The FTT did not regard the provisions set out in the LLC agreement for the allocation of profits to members and their subsequent distribution as amounting to a mechanism like a corporate dividend for effecting a change in ownership of the profits.

The requirement to consider local commercial law characteristics had been generally understood (including by HMRC) to mean that a typical Delaware LLC would be fiscally opaque for UK tax purposes and therefore that, in contrast to the equivalent US federal income tax position, an LLC member would be subject to UK tax on distributions as and when distributions were made by the LLC. But it followed from the FTT's decision on Delaware law, at least in relation to this particular LLC, that the United Kingdom and the United States both taxed Mr Anson on the same profits – on his share of the profits as they arose to the LLC, rather than on a subsequent distribution from the LLC. This, in turn, meant that he was entitled to credit the US federal and state income tax paid on his share of the LLC's profits against his UK tax bill (under the UK/US tax treaty in respect of US federal income tax, and under similar UK domestic law provisions on foreign tax credits for US state income taxes).

Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal Decisions

The FTT decision was good news for Mr Anson (and for other UK resident individuals in his position). The effective tax rate on his return from the LLC was reduced by virtue of the decision from 67% (taking into account both US federal and state income tax on the LLC's profits and UK tax on the distribution of Mr Anson's share of the post-US tax profits) to the applicable combined US federal and state income tax rate with no incremental UK tax cost.

The news was perhaps far less good for the settled UK treatment of foreign entities; for instance, where UK resident corporate or tax exempt investors would expect to be treated for UK tax purposes as receiving exempt distributions from an LLC, and – consistent with an investment in an opaque entity – should not recognise any taxable income at all unless and until there was a distribution. Separately, the finding of the FTT that the LLC interests in Anson were more similar to partnership capital than share capital raised questions about the application of the grouping rules for UK tax purposes (where it is important that interests in affiliates take the form of ordinary share capital) to LLCs within corporate groups.

HMRC swiftly published a release stating that the FTT's decision was being appealed and that its previous practice would continue to be applied pending the outcome of the appeal process.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal (in 2011) and the Court of Appeal (in 2013) both disagreed with the FTT's decision. Broadly, they held that, for Mr Anson's case to succeed, he needed to show that his profits and the LLC's profits had the same source and that, following Memec, unless Mr Anson could demonstrate that he had a proprietary interest in the LLC's profits, his profits must be of a different source to those arising to the LLC. Since the FTT's findings on Delaware law did not disclose any such proprietary interest, his case failed.

Whilst there were some difficulties with this – for example, it is difficult to locate a proprietary interest that a member of a Scottish partnership has in the partnership's assets or profits – these decisions were generally welcomed as confirming the previous practice in this area.

The Supreme Court Decision of 1 July

The Supreme Court has now unanimously overturned the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal decisions, and upheld the initial judgment of the FTT.

Lord Reed, with whom the four other Supreme Court judges agreed, based his decision on the terms of the UK/US tax treaty dealing with tax credits – 10 pages of the judgment are devoted to a magisterial exposition on the history of the relevant treaty provisions from 1945 onwards. The nub of the decision returns to the FTT's finding that, under Delaware law, the members of the LLC became entitled to their share of the profits generated by the business of the LLC automatically as the profits arose, prior to and independently of any subsequent distribution. The expert evidence on Delaware law entitled the FTT to make that finding, which could not be set aside through the arguments that had persuaded the intermediate courts otherwise. In particular, the weight given in Memec to proprietary rights only came about because of the particular terms of the treaty provisions with which that case was concerned (dealing with credit for underlying tax paid by subsidiaries owned by the German silent partnership of which Memec plc was a member, rather than credit for tax on the profits of the partnership itself). Accordingly, it was sufficient to hold, and the Supreme Court did hold, that Mr Anson's UK tax liability was computed by reference to the same income as was taxed in the United States, so that he qualified for credit. The Supreme Court's decision is the final step in the case, and no further appeal is available to HMRC.


In principle, the decision in Anson concerns the analysis of one particular foreign entity, and one particular consequence of that analysis for its UK resident members. This was also true of the Memec case, but the principles derived from that case as distilled by HMRC published practice have governed the UK approach to entity classification for the past 15 years or more. Memec required several local law characteristics of foreign entities to be evaluated and balanced, whereas the focus in Anson was almost exclusively on members' entitlements to profits as they arise. Therefore, there are open questions as to appropriate local law characteristics of an entity which must be established, in order to determine the UK tax treatment of that entity in various circumstances.

In practice, there are significant questions about the scope of the decision.

First, whether the decision applies to Delaware LLCs generally, or only where the LLC agreement contains provisions governing the allocation of profits to members' capital accounts which are similar to those in the HarbourVest Partners LLC agreement. This will likely depend on the weight accorded to the seemingly general Delaware statutory requirement that profits are included in members' interests and must be allocated to the members. Secondly, the impact on the treatment for UK tax purposes of other types of foreign entities and LLCs may well now depend on further analysis in the light of the Anson decision, particularly as to the nature of members' entitlements to the entity's profits. Thirdly, the effect on grouping for UK tax purposes of the FTT's decision that the members of HarbourVest Partners LLC did not have interests similar to share capital could be clarified. Fourthly, while the argument in Anson before the various tribunals dealt with subtly different concepts of transparency/opacity, partnership/company, source and the 'same profits' condition, the Supreme Court decision in Anson was based on the 'same profits' condition in the UK/US treaty. It remains to be seen whether an LLC which does fall within Anson is now to be treated as a transparent partnership for all UK tax purposes, or if different factors apply for instance in relation to capital gains and to the distribution and substantial shareholding exemptions; it seems that Memec may still hold good for now in relation to underlying tax credits.

Taxpayers whose structures depend on UK entity classification prior to Anson should review their positions. It is to be hoped that HMRC will clarify their practice in this area as soon as possible.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the Anson case drew on the expertise of no fewer than 11 eminent UK judges (for the record, the final outcome was favoured by a combined 7-4 majority), together with numerous counsel for the parties. Yet, at bottom, the case turned on the contrasting factual evidence given by two Delaware law experts before the FTT, which the three higher courts have had to construe without further input. This is not the first time that foreign law points have been highly significant in recent important UK tax cases (see, for example, the First Nationwide case [2012] EWCA Civ 278 in relation to the local law nature of Cayman dividends paid out of share premium account, and the HSBC Holdings case [2012] UKFTT 163 (TC) in relation to the local law nature of American depositary receipts). Often, these points cover fine distinctions which have little or no practical relevance except to the UK tax position. Absent the second bite of the cherry that the multiple Archer-Shee cases afforded (as discussed above, in Archer-Shee a second case gave a chance for New York lawyers to weigh in), who knows what further insights Delaware lawyers would have been able to give to the higher courts, if only they had been able to ask?

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.

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.