One minute with Nick Wright, Head of Corporate Tax at Jerroms Miller
What’s keeping you busy at work?
A lot! As a corporate team specialising in OMBs, and particularly restructuring and succession planning, there are always numerous transactions taking place at once. I also host ‘The Tax Hour’ podcast, lecture for numerous CPD providers and often write for various tax publications.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Tax is an almost limitless area of knowledge. No adviser, however experienced, can know everything. The best advisers are the ones that know what they don’t know, and who build a network of other expert advisers, rather than trying to be the expert on everything themselves. Even in your own specialist field, you are unlikely to be omniscient, so always surround yourself with people who challenge your thinking and expand your perspective.
If you could make one change to a tax...
I’d introduce a more structured separation between the technical design of tax legislation and short-term political decision-making. I accept it is necessary for governments to set tax policy objectives, but the detailed design of legislation would benefit from being led by economists and tax specialists, with a greater emphasis on coherence and long-term stability.
What new trends you’re seeing in tax?
For the first time in some years, the reconstructions world has seen a significant shift, with the anti-avoidance rules at TCGA 1992 s 137 being replaced. With hindsight, perhaps this should have been expected given HMRC’s losses in the Wilkinson [2023] UKFTT 695 (TC) and Delinian [2023] EWCA Civ 1281 cases. Nevertheless, it does refocus attention on how the rules operate in practice.
The new regime moves away from the old ‘commercial purpose’ test and instead applies a broader purpose-based test. The new rules are also more targeted and, arguably, more flexible; HMRC now have the ability to counteract only the tax advantage arising from particular elements of a transaction, rather than denying relief in its entirety. While this approach may be more proportionate, it inevitably introduces a greater degree of uncertainty as to how the rules will be applied in practice.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
Two recent transactions in securities cases that caught my eye are Osmondand Allen [2024] UKFTT 378 (TC) and Oscroft [2026] UKFTT 251 (TC), both of which highlight how uncertain and fact-sensitive this area has become.
In Osmond, the FTT took a wide approach to the motive test, effectively concluding that where a transaction is undertaken to secure a CGT advantage, an income tax advantage inevitably follows. Although overturned by the UT, the case shows HMRC’s willingness to rely on a purposive interpretation, including on timing and procedural issues.
By contrast, Oscroft shows that taxpayers can still succeed on technical arguments. In particular, the FTT found in favour of the taxpayers on the timing of assessments, rejecting HMRC’s argument that the transactions in securities rules operate as a fully self-contained regime. This is significant in practice, especially for historic cases, as it limits HMRC’s ability to rely on extended time limits.
The cases underline two key themes: HMRC continue to push a wide, purposive application of the rules, but outcomes can still turn on relatively fine technical distinctions.
You might not know this about me but...
Away from the desk, I love nothing more than getting my hands dirty with DIY and carpentry projects. After a week spent working through complex problems in my head, there’s something deeply satisfying about building something real and tangible with my hands.
One minute with Nick Wright, Head of Corporate Tax at Jerroms Miller
What’s keeping you busy at work?
A lot! As a corporate team specialising in OMBs, and particularly restructuring and succession planning, there are always numerous transactions taking place at once. I also host ‘The Tax Hour’ podcast, lecture for numerous CPD providers and often write for various tax publications.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Tax is an almost limitless area of knowledge. No adviser, however experienced, can know everything. The best advisers are the ones that know what they don’t know, and who build a network of other expert advisers, rather than trying to be the expert on everything themselves. Even in your own specialist field, you are unlikely to be omniscient, so always surround yourself with people who challenge your thinking and expand your perspective.
If you could make one change to a tax...
I’d introduce a more structured separation between the technical design of tax legislation and short-term political decision-making. I accept it is necessary for governments to set tax policy objectives, but the detailed design of legislation would benefit from being led by economists and tax specialists, with a greater emphasis on coherence and long-term stability.
What new trends you’re seeing in tax?
For the first time in some years, the reconstructions world has seen a significant shift, with the anti-avoidance rules at TCGA 1992 s 137 being replaced. With hindsight, perhaps this should have been expected given HMRC’s losses in the Wilkinson [2023] UKFTT 695 (TC) and Delinian [2023] EWCA Civ 1281 cases. Nevertheless, it does refocus attention on how the rules operate in practice.
The new regime moves away from the old ‘commercial purpose’ test and instead applies a broader purpose-based test. The new rules are also more targeted and, arguably, more flexible; HMRC now have the ability to counteract only the tax advantage arising from particular elements of a transaction, rather than denying relief in its entirety. While this approach may be more proportionate, it inevitably introduces a greater degree of uncertainty as to how the rules will be applied in practice.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
Two recent transactions in securities cases that caught my eye are Osmondand Allen [2024] UKFTT 378 (TC) and Oscroft [2026] UKFTT 251 (TC), both of which highlight how uncertain and fact-sensitive this area has become.
In Osmond, the FTT took a wide approach to the motive test, effectively concluding that where a transaction is undertaken to secure a CGT advantage, an income tax advantage inevitably follows. Although overturned by the UT, the case shows HMRC’s willingness to rely on a purposive interpretation, including on timing and procedural issues.
By contrast, Oscroft shows that taxpayers can still succeed on technical arguments. In particular, the FTT found in favour of the taxpayers on the timing of assessments, rejecting HMRC’s argument that the transactions in securities rules operate as a fully self-contained regime. This is significant in practice, especially for historic cases, as it limits HMRC’s ability to rely on extended time limits.
The cases underline two key themes: HMRC continue to push a wide, purposive application of the rules, but outcomes can still turn on relatively fine technical distinctions.
You might not know this about me but...
Away from the desk, I love nothing more than getting my hands dirty with DIY and carpentry projects. After a week spent working through complex problems in my head, there’s something deeply satisfying about building something real and tangible with my hands.
2e57498c-0da6-4646-a5fb-7a7570a14975.jpg?sfvrsn=3909c9d0_1)
.tmb-editorspic.jpeg?sfvrsn=7981419_1)
