The pause has immediate consequences that may slow and complicate UK cross‑border financing and M&A transactions (where failure to file applications for DTA relief are frequently uncovered in due diligence):
1. Cash flow risk
In the absence of concessionary treatment, UK borrowers may be assessed for income tax on interest already paid gross to overseas lenders, even where the lender was factually entitled to receive it without withholding. Buyers of target groups which have failed to apply for DTA relief need to consider how they obtain financial protection for the liability to pay this tax if HMRC does not reinstate the concession in due course.
2. Disclosure
Corporate groups which identify a failure to claim DTA relief on interest payments should take steps to rectify this going forward and should consider making disclosures in respect of the historic position. It is thought that making a disclosure will "stop the clock" on late payment interest in respect of any tax payable, although this has not been confirmed in HMRC's guidance.
3. Administrative burden
Formal HMRC clearance must be obtained before paying interest gross. Transaction timetables may need to accommodate the full process of claiming DTA relief and waiting for HMRC confirmation. Depending on complexity, this can take several months.
4. Complicated situations
Although the borrower must withhold and account for tax (and HMRC will recover unpaid tax from the borrower) the overseas lender must apply for DTA relief and for any repayment of UK tax withheld or assessed. This split of responsibilities can cause issues, for example:
-
- Insolvency of the overseas lender: the borrower may be unable to recover tax paid in error if the lender no longer exists.
-
- Breakdown in commercial relationships: recovery may be difficult if the lender is reluctant (or refuses) to cooperate, particularly where it has no incentive to do so. Borrowers should ensure that their facilities agreements contain provisions obliging lenders to seek repayment of, and refund, any tax that they are entitled to recover. However, even with the benefit of these provisions, enforcement against a reluctant lender may be time-consuming and costly.
5. Finance agreements
Facility agreements between third party lenders and borrowers typically allocate withholding tax risk to the borrower and include gross‑up clauses requiring payment of the interest amount as if no withholding applied. There are also provisions requiring the parties to cooperate in obtaining any procedural formalities to pay gross (such as under the UK DTTP scheme), and in the event of the gross-up operating, there are provisions requiring any corresponding repayments of tax obtained by the lender to be passed back to the borrower (subject to not leaving the lender in any worse position than if no withholding had been required in the first place).
These provisions become more important in the absence of the concession as the potential consequences for the borrower are more severe in the event they fail to withhold. In addition, if tax has to be paid to HMRC, there would be greater reliance on the lenders obtaining tax refunds and passing this back to the borrower. As a result, depending on the relative negotiating positions of the parties, borrowers may push for stronger protections in this area, such as the ability to delay the first interest payment until any clearance to pay gross has been received, and fuller obligations on lenders to obtain and pass back any potential tax refund.