Tax Services

We’ll help you navigate the global tax landscape

The business and tax landscapes have changed dramatically, and the pace and complexity of change continues to increase. Governments are tempering the need for revenue with increased competition for labor and capital. Tax authorities are adapting their enforcement strategies, focus and policies in response to the changing dynamics of business. Companies are balancing competing priorities, ensuring they maintain compliance while adding value.

We can assist you with these critical issues in today's tax environment, including:

Building a tax manifesto for manufacturing 658K, August 2014

  • Midweek Tax News


    A weekly update on tax matters to 21 July 2015

    Midweek Tax News provides you with a succinct overview of the key tax developments that have occurred each week to allow you to stay up-to-date on tax issues that may have an impact on your business. If you would like to discuss an article in more detail, please speak to the relevant contact listed at the end of this issue or to your usual EY contact.

    The summer Finance Bill had its second reading yesterday. Parliament is now in recess and will begin to consider the Bill in committee following its return on 7 September. We understand that the clauses on bank levy, the bank corporation tax surcharge, insurance premium tax and the climate change levy will be considered by a committee of the whole House of Commons on 8 September. Proceedings in the public bill committee are scheduled to conclude on 20 October, though they could finish earlier. As such, it appears that the Finance Bill may not be substantively enacted until October, with Royal Assent shortly after that.

    The Government has also published the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill which enacts the national insurance elements of the triple tax lock. This states that the rates of national insurance for employees and employers cannot increase during the Parliament and that the upper earnings threshold should not exceed the higher rate income tax threshold.

    Our tax alert on the new tax reliefs in the Finance Bill for companies in financial distress is now available.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced plans in the summer Budget for HMRC to adopt enhanced compliance and transparency measures for large businesses. A consultation document will be published shortly and HMRC has also written to large businesses outlining the strategy.

    The new measures are expected to comprise:

    A mandatory requirement for large businesses to publish their tax strategy. Although many businesses already have a tax strategy document, this is often not intended for publication. Even among FTSE100 companies, only just over half publish a tax policy. Forcing companies to publish their tax strategies is consistent with HMRC's existing focus on large businesses' tax risk and control frameworks. It also adds an additional layer of transparency coming on top of country-by-country reporting requirements that most companies will not only need to disclose to tax authorities, but which may eventually be made public as well.

    HMRC setting out a voluntary Code of Practice, modelled on the existing Banking Code of Conduct, which defines the standards HMRC expects large businesses to meet in their relationship with it

    The introduction of a ‘special measures’ regime to tackle businesses that persistently adopt highly aggressive behaviours including around tax planning

    The consultation document was originally intended for release on last Monday, but we understand publication has been put back to this Friday, 24 July. HMRC expects to implement any legislative changes through Finance Bill 2016. However, groups may wish to consider their approach to the transparency agenda in advance of any new requirements becoming mandatory.

    The OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) has met recently to continue its work under base erosion and profit shifting Action 5 (countering harmful tax practices). In particular, it has been finalising details of the modified nexus approach with which preferential intellectual property (IP) regimes must be amended to be compliant. In essence, the modified nexus approach limits the benefits of preferential IP regimes, such as the UK patent box, by reference to the proportion of the research and development carried on by the relevant entity.

    As set out in the OECD's document issued in February 2015, the modified nexus approach is to apply to new entrants no later than 1 July 2016 and to companies claiming the existing patent box benefits before that date from 1 July 2021. However, that document also states that the FHTP should consider whether these grandfathering provisions need additional safeguards such as bringing forward the date by which companies need to be within the existing regime in order to continue to apply the more generous rules during the grandfathering period. Discussions on this have continued and groups looking to transfer patents into the UK patent box regime would be well advised to consider bringing forward such plans in anticipation that the grandfathering rules may apply from an earlier date in certain circumstances.

    The FHTP has also continued its work in considering how research and development expenditure can be tracked and traced in practice. The aim is to balance the compliance burden on groups, taking account of the information available, with the objective of the modified nexus approach to limit the benefits of preferential IP regimes where a significant part of the related research and development expenditure was not carried out by the relevant entity. A final report from the FHTP is not expected until October and only then is HMRC likely to issue a formal consultation document on how the UK patent box regime is to be amended to make it compliant with the modified nexus approach. This leaves little time after the issue of those documents for companies to address the impact of the proposals. Accordingly, groups should consider the likely implications in advance of their publication.

    In the case of Abbey National Treasury Services on the Umbriel transaction, the First-tier Tribunal decided that a debit arising when an existing in-the-money swap was derecognised was not deductible under the derivative contract rules. It also found that the transfer pricing provisions would have deemed that the derecognition transaction would not have been entered into between unconnected parties and, therefore, its tax effects should be ignored.

    The taxpayer issued ‘tracker shares’ to its parent under which it was obliged to make dividend payments that matched the receipts under swaps it held. The effect was that the swaps were derecognised in the taxpayer's accounts and the resulting debit recognised in equity.

    The Tribunal decided that, although the legislation provided that debits to equity could be allowable under the derivative contract rules, this would only be the case where they fairly represented a loss. In the present case, the Tribunal found that there was “no real loss”. Furthermore, the debit arose from the tracker shares and not the swaps, since the position of the taxpayer in respect of the latter was the same before and after the tracker shares were issued. This meant, on both counts, that the debit was not deductible under the derivative contract rules.

    Finally, the Tribunal found that the transfer pricing rules could apply to the tracker shares. There is nothing in the transfer pricing rules, the OECD model convention or the OECD guidance notes to exclude share issues from the rules. The Tribunal went on to find that third parties acting at arm's length would not have entered into the tracker shares transaction and so it should be disregarded for tax purposes. This also meant that the debit would not be deductible.

    Whether transfer pricing rules apply to shares has not been tested in the UK courts before and this decision may affect how the rules should be applied in future.

    The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has released its judgment in the joined cases of Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG and Marenave Schiffahrts AG.

    The CJEU held that where a holding company is actively involved in the management of a subsidiary, and it incurs costs in relation to capital transactions connected to that subsidiary, the VAT on this expenditure can be recovered in full and does not need to be apportioned between business and non-business activities. This is in line with the historic treatment in the UK but is at odds with guidance issued by HMRC last year, which proposed a restriction of input tax on the basis of the business/non-business split and also required a full recharge of the costs. HMRC has already indicated that it will review this policy following the judgment. In the meantime, affected businesses, particularly those that have been assessed by HMRC, may wish to consider the implications of the judgment further.

    The judgment also considered VAT grouping eligibility conditions. The CJEU held that all ‘persons’ can be included in a VAT group and, as such, the German interpretation of the eligibility for VAT grouping was found to be too restrictive. The judgment, therefore, also casts doubt on the UK's VAT grouping eligibility rules which, for instance, prevent some partnerships from joining VAT groups on the basis that the ‘control criteria’ test is not met. Consequently, it is likely that Parliament will need to change the law on eligibility for VAT grouping. This may come as welcome news for businesses which have previously fallen foul of the VAT grouping criteria but which might now be able to avail themselves of VAT grouping prospectively.

    Please see our tax alert for further details.

    HMRC issues discussion document on making the intermediaries legislation more effective

    HMRC has published a discussion document on the intermediaries legislation (known as IR35) which covers the rationale for change, options to improve the effectiveness of the rules and next steps. The IR35 legislation was introduced in 2000 to tackle the perceived avoidance of employment taxes by individuals who work through intermediaries, primarily their own personal service company (PSC).

    The Government believes that there continues to be widespread non-compliance with the IR35 legislation leading to an unfair system whereby two individuals doing the same job can end up paying different levels of tax and national insurance. The Government estimates that the loss of revenue to be about £430 million in tax and national insurance for the current tax year. There were around 265,000 PSCs in 2012/13, a number which, the Government feels, is set to increase.

    The discussion document notes there are genuine commercial reasons for people to work through a PSC and for businesses to engage individuals in this way. The Government also has no intention of stopping people working via a PSC. However, the suggested options for reform and enforcing compliance would require engaging entities to take on more of a role in ensuring that the right amount of employment taxes are paid. This would mean that companies who engage a worker through a PSC would need to consider whether the IR35 legislation applies and, if so, deduct the correct amounts of income tax and national insurance contributions as they would for direct employees. This added burden could be a disincentive to engage services though PSCs. This would appear at odds with the Government's support for an economy which benefits from a flexible labour market.

    HMRC requests comments by the end of September 2015.

    Podcast on HMRC's Know Your Customer (KYC) programme

    Far from being a one-off campaign, KYC is now viewed as a fundamental shift in HRMC's approach to employment tax compliance. In our podcast, Ian Hopkinson, Employment Tax Partner, offers a brief update on how KYC continues to evolve and key themes emerging from HMRC interviews. He considers common questions and shares his insight on the breadth of KYC's impact including on customer relationship managers, disclosures, senior accounting officer duties and business travellers.

    The podcast is available here.

    Employment-related securities (ERS) online service now up and running again

    HMRC's online ERS service is now working again. Some businesses had been unable to file their annual return by the 6 July 2015 deadline and consequently, HMRC has extended the deadline to Tuesday, 4 August. Businesses that file their return on or before this date will not be charged a penalty and there is no need for them to contact HMRC.

    HMRC is still investigating the position of businesses which filed their returns on or before 3 July and received an on-screen acknowledgement. A further communication will be released in due course as to whether such businesses need to resubmit.

    Draft regulations published on regulatory capital and transfers of life business

    HMRC has published draft regulations to extend the tax relief for regulatory capital, currently enjoyed by banks, to insurance companies. The draft regulations also provide that interest on regulatory capital accounted for in equity continues to be deductible. Other draft regulations have been published on proposed changes to the tax rules for intra-group transfers of long-term life insurance business.

    Draft regulations to strengthen the disclosure regime issued for consultation

    Following a consultation in 2014, Finance Act 2015 strengthened aspects of the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) regime. Further changes to scheme hallmarks, which describe the detail of arrangements that fall to be disclosed, are contained in new draft regulations. These amend the standardised tax product and loss scheme hallmarks. The rules are also being extended to include arrangements involving inheritance tax and a new hallmark describing certain financial products is being introduced.

    Impact of the banking company surcharge on the research and development expenditure credit (RDEC)

    The summer Finance Bill provides for a new corporation tax surcharge of 8% on the ‘surcharge profits’ of banking companies. In the absence of a specific exclusion, banking companies that currently claim the RDEC will suffer a reduction in the value of the tax credit. This is because the RDEC is a taxable government grant that is included in profits subject to the new surcharge.

    However, if a banking group is structured such that its qualifying research and development expenditure is incurred by a separate group company, which is not a banking company for the purposes of the tax surcharge, then the additional 8% tax should not apply to this company's RDEC claim.

    We are currently discussing this issue with HMRC's research and development policy advisers.

    Please see our tax alert for more details.

    Consultation documents published on tougher rules to tackle offshore evasion

    HMRC has published four consultation documents on new tougher penalties to tackle offshore tax evaders and the enablers of offshore tax evasion:

    Strengthening civil deterrents for offshore evaders. This consultation seeks views on changing how penalties are calculated and widening the circumstances in which the names of deliberate defaulters are published.

    Civil sanctions for enablers of offshore evasion. The consultation sets out HMRC's definition of “offshore tax evasion” and an “enabler” of offshore tax evasion as well as what sanctions might be appropriate.

    A new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of evasion. This consultation seeks views on the design and potential impact of the offence.

    A new criminal offence for offshore evaders. This consultation seeks further views on the design of the offence and provides responses to the first consultation, which took place in autumn 2014.

    All four consultations close on 8 October 2015.

    Legal challenge to the new tax regime relating to remote gambling

    In the judicial review case of Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Ltd, the High Court considered a challenge to the legality of the new tax regime relating to remote gambling.

    The claimant is a trade association whose members are primarily Gibraltar-based gambling operators who provide remote gambling services to customers in the UK. From 1 December 2014, the taxation of remote gambling changed from a ‘point of supply’ basis to a ‘point of consumption’ basis. Under the new tax regime, general betting duty, pool betting duty and remote gaming duty are chargeable on operators' betting and gaming profits from transactions with UK customers, irrespective of whether the operator is located in the UK or elsewhere.

    In previous judicial review proceedings, the claimant challenged the legality of the new licensing and regulatory regime relating to remote gambling, which was an important part of the background to the new tax regime. In October 2014, the High Court dismissed this claim. In the present case, the clamant contended that the new tax regime was incompatible with Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the EU unless they are proportionate and non-discriminatory. The High Court considered that this involved the determination of points of EU that were not clear. Accordingly, the High Court decided to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

    A ruling in favour of the claimant's challenge will clearly have serious adverse consequences for the Government's new tax regime relating to remote gambling.

    European Court decides that warranty services constitute VAT exempt insurance transactions

    In the case of Mapfre Warranty SpA, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considered whether the separate supply of a used car mechanical breakdown warranty qualified for VAT exemption under EU law as an insurance transaction.

    The taxpayer sold mechanical breakdown warranties to consumers who purchased used cars from independent car dealers. The warranty covered the repair of mechanical breakdowns affecting the vehicle. The taxpayer charged VAT on the sale of the warranties. However, the French tax authorities considered that the warranties were insurance transactions for VAT purposes and instead should have been treated as exempt from VAT and subject to French insurance premium tax. The CJEU held that warranties supplied by third parties (ie, not by the person selling the item covered by the warranty) constitute VAT exempt insurance transactions under EU law. However, it is not clear whether the same would apply if the warranty was provided by the person selling the item covered by the warranty (in this case, the car dealer).

    This judgment potentially impacts retailers' extended warranties and other warranties issued by third parties which are currently treated as taxable for VAT purposes.

    Greece announces significant and immediate VAT changes

    On 16 July 2015, Greece announced a number of significant VAT changes, including changes to VAT rates and measures for the immediate withholding and remittance of VAT by bank institutions. These reforms are required by EU creditors as part of the new bailout package to keep Greece in the euro.

    Specifically, various goods and services (including certain foodstuffs, passenger transport and restaurant services), all of which were previously subject to the reduced rate of VAT (13%) in Greece, are now subject to the standard rate of VAT (23%) with effect from 20 July. In another immediate change, for transactions between businesses exceeding €3,000, banks will be required to withhold and remit the corresponding VAT directly to the Greek tax authorities. The bank will then issue a certificate for the relevant VAT amount to the businesses involved in the transaction so that this may be reflected in their VAT returns.

    Our global tax alert provides further details.

    Other global tax alerts

    Please see links to a selection of our tax alerts in respect of the following developments. Additional articles are available in our global tax alert library.

    Spain: Country-by-country reporting rules and amendments to transfer pricing documentation requirements have been enacted.

    Brazil: Increases in taxes on financial institutions and dividends, and the introduction of a wealth tax are likely as the Government attempts to shrink the deficit.

    Cyprus: New laws introduce a notional interest deduction on equity and the taxation of certain kinds of income for non-domiciled individuals.

    Bangladesh: The enactment of this year's Budget means, among other measures, that corporate income tax on public companies has been reduced.

    Other publications

    Please speak to your usual EY contact, or email us at, if you would like to receive a copy of our regular indirect tax newsletter, or information about our other publications.

    Further information

    If you would like to discuss any of the articles in this week's edition of Midweek Tax News, please contact the individuals listed below, Claire Hooper (+ 44 20 7951 2486), or your usual EY contact.

    Summer Finance Bill progress through Parliament

    Email Claire Hooper

    + 44 20 7951 2486

    New large business compliance measures will reinforce the transparency agenda

    Email Mandy Pachol

    + 44 20 7951 7092

    Earlier grandfathering date for changes to the patent box regime

    Email Claire Hooper

    + 44 20 7951 2486

    First-tier Tribunal denies deduction for swap derecognition and decides that transfer pricing rules can apply to share issues

    Email Mike Gibson

    + 44 20 7951 2486

    FEuropean Court decides on VAT recovery position of holding companies and restriction of VAT grouping

    Email Fiona Campbell

    + 44 20 7951 3625

    For other queries or comments please email

    Back to the top

  • Operating in a shifting tax landscape

    The global tax landscape continues to change in a dramatic fashion, with near-constant news hitting the headlines regarding shifting tax policy, increasing levels of enforcement and the growing potential of reputational risk.

    Competing priorities

    Multinational companies now have to balance more competing priorities than ever before, ensuring they protect their business by monitoring and responding to changes in policy, legislation and tax enforcement, while at the same time ensuring they not only maintain the highest levels of compliance but also add value from the tax function.

    Governments work to secure each tax dollar they're due

    From a policy perspective, all governments want their country to be viewed as an attractive place to do business, to attract jobs and capital in an increasingly competitive globalized arena.

    At the same time, they want to increase the amount of revenue they bring in. Governments are treading a fine line, constantly assessing how to secure the tax revenues they see as rightly theirs, while at the same time being in direct competition with other nations, making sure they do not scare off mobile capital.

    Tax administrations for their part are adapting their enforcement strategies, focus and policies in response to the changing dynamics of business. They are working to ensure that their resources are being applied to the right issues and taxpayers. They share more leading practices and taxpayer information with their foreign counterparts, to help them collect every dollar due.

    Disputes are on the rise

    The result has been more  frequent, complex and higher value disputes between taxpayers and taxing authorities — a trend that is only increasing as countries collaborate together and as emerging markets gain in stature and influence, taking a more sophisticated approach to taxation. Penalties are becoming more stringent and the threat of reputational risk has risen significantly in recent months.

    We can help you to navigate a route through this complex landscape.

    We can help you monitor and react to quickly-changing tax policy and assess the economic and fiscal impact.

    Where tax policies might create an impediment to your business that is unintended by policy makers, we can help you to collaborate – either solely, or as part of a broader grouping of companies who share a common objective – with government to:

    • Explain the impediment
    • Develop alternative policy choices which are logical and well thought out
    • Model the potential outcomes
    • Deliver an alternative choice to the government in a form with which policy makers can comfortably work

    We also help you address your global tax controversy, enforcement and disclosure needs.

    We focus on pre-filing controversy management to help you properly and consistently file your returns and prepare the relevant back-up documentation.

    Where a controversy has already occurred, our professionals leverage the network's collective knowledge of how tax authorities operate, and increasingly work together, to help resolve difficult or sensitive tax disputes. To ensure that continuous performance improvements are instigated after a controversy, we work with EY's other tax professionals to ensure that similar events are less likely to occur.

    Below you can access our views and analysis of some of the substantial policy and enforcement trends and issues at play today.

    Related content


    Alternative Dispute Resolution: a new chapter emerges

    As tax authorities adapt their enforcement in response to changing business dynamics, so must taxpayers. One key is the knowledge of alternative dispute resolution tools.

  • Seizing the opportunity in Global Compliance and Reporting

    Global Compliance and Reporting (GCR) is at a tipping point, with risks on the rise. Many companies distribute responsibility for GCR processes throughout their organization, creating a patchwork. Local jurisdictions are rewriting regulations, focusing more intently on the collection of tax revenues and sharing more taxpayer information across borders.

    Due to the combination of evolving business models, transforming finance functions and an increasingly complex regulatory landscape, there are new opportunities to better optimize efficiency, control and value, to help mitigate risk and improve performance.

    What is Global Compliance and Reporting?

    GCR comprises the key elements of a company's finance and tax processes that prepare statutory financial and tax filings as required in countries around the world. These duties include:

    • Statutory accounting and reporting
    • Tax accounting and provisions
    • Income tax compliance
    • Indirect tax compliance
    • Governance and control of the above processes

    GCR activities reside in the middle of a broader set of record-to-report (R2R) processes. R2R is the intersection between any company's finance and tax departments and is used to capture, process and store information that is essential to statutory accounting, tax compliance and reporting. Any change to R2R processes, information, finance systems, roles and responsibilities will have a direct impact on GCR processes.

    Helping you meet the new GCR demands

    Fast changing compliance and reporting requirements are more demanding on tax and finance functions today than ever before. So how do you improve control and quality, manage risk, create efficiency and drive value?

    Our market-leading approach combines standard and efficient processes, highly effective tools and an extensive network of local tax and accounting subject matter professionals.

    Related content

  • Building effective supply chains

    As multinational companies seek to reach new markets and compete more effectively in mature markets, they are adapting and differentiating their supply chains. Companies’ operating models need to cater for efficiency and scale in mature markets, while having the flexibility and local ability to support growth in emerging markets. Consequently, driving true shareholder value requires an operating model that combines global and regionally differentiated processes, and integrates these with local striking power and operational excellence.

    Leading companies recognize the need for integrating tax in their business planning and decision processes

    Whether companies seek to enter new markets or drive efficiencies in mature markets, leading companies understand the complexities of the international tax systems. The impact of both direct taxes and indirect taxes needs to be carefully considered and integrated to drive the effectiveness of the operating model while complying with all applicable local and international tax laws and effectively manage all tax risks. Operating model effectiveness is becoming one of the cornerstones of successful competition and differentiation.

    Our approach

    The EY TESCM offering helps ensure you do just that. Our advisory and tax professionals operate as one team to assist our clients with developing and implementing operating model optimization where business needs and requirements are the driver while making sure that tax is an integrated part of the design of the operating model architecture.

  • Managing mobile workforce risk

    In today's globally integrated, tightly regulated and increasingly competitive business environment, one critical success factor stands out: people. It’s no wonder that leading companies are focusing their efforts on:

    • Attracting and retaining the right people
    • Global talent deployment and mobility
    • HR and payroll effectiveness
    • Risk, governance and compliance

    Managing the risks of mobile employees

    While optimizing the competitive advantage of your people has long been a core objective, a more recent set of trends in the tax landscape means that large companies with an internationally mobile workforce are at a higher risk of tax noncompliance and resulting controversy than ever before.

    Fortunately, an increasing number of organizations are currently either planning or embracing a wider process of change for their mobility teams.

    Unintended tax compliance obligations

    These travelers are increasingly creating unintended tax compliance obligations, and the resulting risks are not just personal. They are felt at the corporate level, with the corporate tax function often unaware of the extent of the spreading problem. Tax administrations are becoming increasingly aware of the issue, however, and are very effectively using new technology to identify where a tax obligation has arisen. In a rising tax enforcement landscape, this issue has significant potential to grow.

    Managing these risks should be a burning platform issue for multinational companies.

    Will your tax risks prompt a tax audit?

    What may start as a relatively simple personal income tax compliance issue can quickly create a ripple effect, with risks such as the creation of a permanent establishment, an employment tax audit or the payment of a significant related penalty all occurring at the corporate level.

    Companies, recognizing the spectrum of reputational, personal and financial risks related to tax, are making strong efforts to be compliant. There is an increasing acceptance that such issues are becoming increasingly urgent from both a reputational and a financial perspective.

    How we are helping companies

    Our Human Capital network embeds processes and technology that will help companies to identify and manage short-term business traveler-related risks before they occur. Where controversy has already arisen, our global Tax Controversy network can use our insights into the culture and processes and relationships with each key tax administration to remediate issues. With prior year issues being rapidly unearthed, and with tax administrations focusing on this issue more than ever before, the time to act is now.

    Related content

    EY-Building a new talent management model

    Building a new talent management model

    Businesses are on the brink of a talent crisis. Only a major shift in thinking can help tackle the global talent shortfall.


    Business travelers: assessing tax and immigration risks

    Immigration and tax laws are increasingly aggressive toward business travelers and their companies. Leading companies actively mitigate business travel risks. Do you?

Related content

EY - Practice guide: witness evidence in tax disputes

Practice guide: witness evidence in tax disputes

Good evidence preparation starts long before a First-tier Tribunal hearing is in contemplation and has a part to play in all aspects of engagement with HMRC. Read our thoughts on a best practice approach .

EY - Our Guide to UK year end tax planning 2014-15

Our Guide to UK year end tax planning 2014/15

Our Guide to UK year end tax planning 2014/15 highlights some of the major issues and areas we think it prudent for taxpayers to consider as the end of the tax year approaches.

EY - A Guide to year end tax planning for non-domiciliaries 2014-15

A Guide to year end tax planning for non-domiciliaries 2014/15

A Guide to year end tax planning for non-domiciliaries 2014/15 is also available.

EY - 2014 Global Transfer Pricing Tax Authority Survey

2014 Global Transfer Pricing Tax Authority Survey

Our survey of 50 jurisdictions across the Americas, Asia-Pacific and Europe, confirms that transfer pricing continues to be front of mind for tax authorities and multinationals.

EY - Global Mobility Effectiveness Survey 2013

Global Mobility Effectiveness Survey 2013

Your talent is in motion. Are you ready to join the conversation?

Contact us

Find your nearest Tax contact:


Find out about our Law services.


Connect with us

Stay connected with us through social media, email alerts or webcasts. Or download our EY Insights app for mobile devices.

EY - Summer Budget 2015

Summer Budget 2015

Read all our commentary, thought leadership and insight into Summer Budget 2015 and the Finance Bill.

EY - The Finance Act 2014 training modules

The Finance Act 2014 training modules

Watch our Finance Act webcasts for insight and interpretation around the impact of this year's UK Finance Act from some of our leading tax professionals.