Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

LightNews

Dan Neidle

@danneidle.bsky.social

60K followers 100 following 3.4K posts

Founder of Tax Policy Associates Ltd. Tax realist. @danneidle on Twitter

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 52m

And a write-up from R&D specialist Paul Rosser, who's been following this from the start: www.linkedin.com/pulse/rd-pro...

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 52m

The Courier article: www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/foo...

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 52m

Our original report, with the full ZLX document, and now updated: taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/07/31/d...

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 52m

If

1. the report we have is genuine, and was sent to HMRC, and
2. the research project described in the report didn't actually exist

Then anyone submitting the report who knew about its falsity appears to have committed tax fraud.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 52m

Second, the R&D claim, pitiful as it was, centred around a research project conducted with Abertay University.

Paul Malik at The Courier used an FOIA application to obtain Abertay's emails on the project - and discovered no project existed. Just preliminary discussions.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 52m

First, an ex-Dundee United director confirms Dundee signed the document, and it was submitted to HMRC.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 52m

ZLX denied the document had been sent to HMRC (but then why was it prepared and signed?).

Dundee United's FD denied signing it. But his electronic signature was on it.

A report in the Courier has two big developments: www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/foo...

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 52m

Big development on our July storyabout a dodgy tax relief claim by Dundee United and tax firm ZLX.

The club made a huge claim for R&D tax relief which said that 24% of the players' time, and 80% of the chef's time, was spent on "research and development".

Not credible.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

A better answer: replace stamp duty with a smarter tax, that's fairer, doesn't discourage people from moving, and can't be avoided.

I'll be writing more about that at the weekend.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

My answer: stamp duty is a terrible tax.

But abolishing it isn't great, because all that does is push up house prices, and perhaps the single biggest socioeconomic problem in the UK is the unaffordability of houses for most people.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

The point where people of goodwill will differ is whether abolition is the answer.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

... and the current very high rates of SDLT have all-but-frozen high value property transactions.

That's bad for everyone.

So, whatever your view of redistributive taxation, you should support the abolition of SDLT for *everyone*, including the very wealthy.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

It's a *good thing* to make it easier for people who live in very expensive houses to move. There is one housing market. Plenty of chains have (or had) a £300k flat at one end and a £4m house at the other...

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

So the immediate effect of abolishing stamp duty is that house prices rise, with a disproportionate benefit for people in £10m+ homes.

Abolition would literally be handing them £1m+

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

The second, truer, answer: people who currently own very expensive homes.

The evidence is that stamp duty is economically paid by sellers - it reduces property prices.

(I went through the evidence for that here taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/09/s... )

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 13h

Who benefits from the abolition of stamp duty land tax?

The first answer: people buying very expensive homes. Average saving for someone buying a £10m+ home is £1.7m. Average saving for someone buying a £250k-£500k home is £5k.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 3d

if HMRC said that's "legal" then I'm the Queen of Sheba.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 4d

And if you like valuation spreadsheets, you can follow me here or subscribe for free updates at taxpolicy.org.uk/subscribe

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 4d

Longer version of this thread here: buff.ly/3k8Uqtl

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 4d

If the Government is serious about cracking down on tax avoidance then firms like Property118 have to be regulated.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 4d

It's a mis-selling scandal when HMRC challenges the avoidance and the taxpayer has to pay up

It's a cost to all of us when HMRC misses it, and the taxpayer gets away with it.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 4d

Which brings us back to where we started.

Most of the HMRC losses from tax avoidance aren't from multinationals or billionaires - they're from small businesses, who've often been sold disastrous schemes by unregulated advisers.

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 4d

The Government is about to introduce regulation for tax advisers.

But it will only apply to agents who interact with HMRC; not those, like Property118, who stay in the shadows

www.gov.uk/government/p...

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 4d

That leaves a Property118's client with no recourse if, as here, the tax advice is wrong. Worse, HMRC will likely be able to say the client was "careless" in relying upon an adviser who said they weren't providing definitive advice.