One minute with Jake Landman, Partner at Pinsent Masons
What’s keeping you busy at work?
A real mix as always. I’m preparing for a tribunal hearing concerning ring fence taxation. We’re also doing a highly confidential extensive investigation for a multinational with significant tax at stake. We’ve been advising another multinational on a dialogue with HMRC regarding employment tax issues connected with UK secondees.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
That tax litigation often involves questioning absolutely everything in the context of the relevant tax provision. HMRC increasingly take quite novel and surprising positions in an effort to win a case once things move into the litigation process. All bets are off to some extent.
Are there any tax issues that are causing a particular problem in practice?
Following the various judgments from the Court of Appeal last year concerning denial of tax deductions for interest payments on unallowable purpose grounds, companies would certainly benefit from further guidance as to when it is possible to use debt rather than equity funding and still fall on the right side of the unallowable purpose line. This is an area where the law has developed extensively beyond what people had understood to have been the correct position over the last ten years or so. HMRC are reluctant to provide detailed guidance on what will be accepted as commercial non-tax reasons for using debt. We are perhaps facing a bit of a vacuum at the moment whilst other cases work their way through the courts to consider the position further.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
The recent Elsbury v ICO case ([2025] UKFTT 9115 (GRC)) regarding disclosure of information about HMRC use of artificial intelligence is very topical and thought provoking. While HMRC have recently responded to the request by stating that the specific team were not using generative AI and that it was not approved for use in generating taxpayer letters, it leaves open the question of whether HMRC are using AI in wider decision making. It will be interesting to test how that fits with the existing legislative framework, which usually frames time limits and assessment powers by reference to an officer.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I think HMRC could take a more proportionate approach to requesting information both formally and informally in our new world of extensive data. Whilst it is often possible to persuade HMRC to row back from an initial request, it feels like HMRC practice should be modernised in this area so that their starting point on these things is less extreme.
Finally, you might not know this about me but…
I was a drum and bass DJ in my younger years. I put my turntables and vinyl into storage when converting a room into a nursery for my second child. Unfortunately, unlike Ros Atkins (the BBC journalist), I’ve not been invited to mix a drum and bass set at Glastonbury yet!
One minute with Jake Landman, Partner at Pinsent Masons
What’s keeping you busy at work?
A real mix as always. I’m preparing for a tribunal hearing concerning ring fence taxation. We’re also doing a highly confidential extensive investigation for a multinational with significant tax at stake. We’ve been advising another multinational on a dialogue with HMRC regarding employment tax issues connected with UK secondees.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
That tax litigation often involves questioning absolutely everything in the context of the relevant tax provision. HMRC increasingly take quite novel and surprising positions in an effort to win a case once things move into the litigation process. All bets are off to some extent.
Are there any tax issues that are causing a particular problem in practice?
Following the various judgments from the Court of Appeal last year concerning denial of tax deductions for interest payments on unallowable purpose grounds, companies would certainly benefit from further guidance as to when it is possible to use debt rather than equity funding and still fall on the right side of the unallowable purpose line. This is an area where the law has developed extensively beyond what people had understood to have been the correct position over the last ten years or so. HMRC are reluctant to provide detailed guidance on what will be accepted as commercial non-tax reasons for using debt. We are perhaps facing a bit of a vacuum at the moment whilst other cases work their way through the courts to consider the position further.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
The recent Elsbury v ICO case ([2025] UKFTT 9115 (GRC)) regarding disclosure of information about HMRC use of artificial intelligence is very topical and thought provoking. While HMRC have recently responded to the request by stating that the specific team were not using generative AI and that it was not approved for use in generating taxpayer letters, it leaves open the question of whether HMRC are using AI in wider decision making. It will be interesting to test how that fits with the existing legislative framework, which usually frames time limits and assessment powers by reference to an officer.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I think HMRC could take a more proportionate approach to requesting information both formally and informally in our new world of extensive data. Whilst it is often possible to persuade HMRC to row back from an initial request, it feels like HMRC practice should be modernised in this area so that their starting point on these things is less extreme.
Finally, you might not know this about me but…
I was a drum and bass DJ in my younger years. I put my turntables and vinyl into storage when converting a room into a nursery for my second child. Unfortunately, unlike Ros Atkins (the BBC journalist), I’ve not been invited to mix a drum and bass set at Glastonbury yet!
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=c9a7a0cc_1)
