Under the current UTT regime, a large business must notify HMRC where it takes a different view from HMRC on how tax law should be interpreted or applied. In March 2026, the government published a consultation document seeking views on the following changes to the rules: 

• bringing individuals and trusts within the scope of the regime;
• extending the regime to include more taxes, including capital gains tax (CGT) and stamp duty land tax (SDLT);
• introducing an additional trigger to require disclosure where HMRC’s position is not known and there is more than one credible interpretation; and
• tightening the existing general exemption that applies where it is reasonable for the taxpayer to believe that HMRC is already aware of the uncertainty. Under the proposals, the taxpayer would need to have confirmation from HMRC that it is aware of the uncertainty. 

Further details are provided in an earlier article. 

ICAEW has responded to the consultation in ICAEW Representation 37/26.  

General observations 

ICAEW supports the government’s efforts to reduce the tax gap. However, any measures must be properly targeted, reasonable and not impose disproportionate costs and burdens on taxpayers seeking to comply with the tax system.  

Rather than imposing additional burdens on taxpayers, the government should consider what it can do to reduce legal uncertainties created by the volume and complexity of the UK's tax system, keeping in mind HMRC’s Charter obligations to help taxpayers “get tax right”. This includes simplifying legislation, improving HMRC’s guidance and having better HMRC clearance procedures. 

ICAEW suggests that, where HMRC is notified of an uncertainty under the UTT regime, it should be legally required to publish guidance addressing that uncertainty, or amend existing legislation, within, say, 12 months of the notification having been made.  

Responses to specific points 

ICAEW: 

• considers that the UTT regime should not be extended to individuals and trusts until the review of the personal tax offshore anti-avoidance legislation has been concluded and any resulting changes have been enacted;
• believes that the extension of the UTT regime to CGT is reasonable but that SDLT should be brought within scope only if HMRC excludes issues relating to the anti-avoidance provisions (s75A, Finance Act 2003) or does more to clarify the position. ICAEW does not support the extension of the regime to the construction industry scheme, national insurance or inheritance tax; 
• does not support the introduction of an additional trigger (referred to as the third trigger) proposed by the government. ICAEW believes that the third trigger is unnecessary as speculative interpretations of the law are already contrary to HMRC’s Guidelines for Compliance 13 and to the tax planning standards in Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation; and
• questions how the proposed tightening of the general exemption would work in practice given HMRC delays in replying to post, including in connection with enquiry cases.