Moira Grassick explores the implications of the new gender pay gap reporting portal set to launch in Autumn 2025 Norma Foley, Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, has announced that a gender pay gap reporting portal will be launched in Autumn 2025.   This is a significant update for Irish businesses, as the Department estimates that about 6,000 companies will need to submit a gender pay gap report to the online portal this year.   Foley also indicated that the reporting deadline is expected in November.  Gender pay gap reporting to date The Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021 requires businesses to publish a report detailing the hourly gender pay gap in their business, across a range of specified metrics. The Act is part of a wider initiative to improve gender equality in Ireland and, more specifically, aims to bring about greater pay parity between men and women.  Initially, when the requirement was introduced in 2022, only companies with 250 employees or more were required to submit a gender pay gap report. This threshold has been increasing gradually each year and, in 2025, any company with 50 employees or more will be required to file a report.    The portal: what you need to know  Up until this point, companies have been required to post their gender pay gap reports either on their own website or somewhere else accessible to the public.   As well as submitting statistics and figures on gender-based pay information within the business, employers have also been required to publish an explanation for any gender pay gap that does arise from those findings.   With the introduction of the new portal, this system will change.   Once launched, employers will be required to upload their pay gap reports directly to the portal, and not just on their own website.   New reporting deadline  As well as announcing the upcoming launch of the portal, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality also suggested that the reporting deadline this year will take place in November, and not in December as was the case in previous years.   Employers will be required to gather their gender pay gap data on a ‘snapshot’ date in June, and to publish those results in November. The exact reporting date will depend on the snapshot date selected by the employer. For example, if a business chooses 5 June as their snapshot date, they will be required to publish the results on the portal by 5 November.   Transparency and accountability If your business employs 50 or more staff and you need to file a gender pay gap report in November, it's essential to understand the required publishing method. Once launched, you must submit your report directly through the online portal.  The portal's design could enhance public access to gender pay gap reports compared to before. Individuals will be able to search all gender pay gap reports on one platform, facilitating easier comparison of multiple reports simultaneously and enabling clearer conclusions and comparisons. Moira Grassick is Chief Operating Officer at Peninsula

Sustainable HR practices enhance corporate responsibility and workplace culture, attracting top talent and driving long-term success, writes Neil Hughes Sustainable HR can be viewed through two lenses. First, as a means to support initiatives that align with an organisation’s corporate social responsibility (CSR), and second, to create policies and practices that enable a sustainable workplace culture.  The Society for Human Resource Management recently reported that more than 65 percent of job seekers favour firms with sustainable HR practices. This creates a challenge for senior leaders and human resources (HR) functions to introduce sustainable HR practices that attract, retain and develop employees. Embedding sustainability across people practices HR functions can integrate sustainable HR methods throughout all people practices, including recruitment and onboarding, learning and development, performance management and hybrid working policies.  Introducing sustainable initiatives drives both operational and cultural change and supports the organisation in achieving CSR commitments and improving corporate image. Additionally, sustainable HR fosters a culture of responsibility, enhances employee engagement and contributes to long-term business success.  Recruitment functions that create sustainable ways of attracting, assessing and onboarding new staff will gain a significant competitive advantage in the ‘war for talent’. For instance, processes that are highly automated improve the candidate experience and contribute to sustainable practices.  We have seen a marked increase in HR functions designing and delivering learning and development (L&D) interventions that educate and upskill their employees on environmental and sustainable practices. L&D courses can be used to promote green initiatives such as reducing energy consumption and single-use plastics, promoting recycling, raising employee awareness and promoting action. Organisations that empower their employees with knowledge and skills in this area improve their ability to contribute to the company’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. Some organisations offer the opportunity to achieve a diploma in business sustainability and provide courses that are CPD accredited.  We have also seen L&D functions become more aware of delivering learning in a sustainable way. For example, facilitating learning online rather than requiring staff to travel to face-to-face learning events. Driving engagement and long-term cultural change An important factor in our people’s motivation is their ability to make the connection between their work responsibilities and their organisation’s purpose and goals. HR functions can facilitate this connection by embedding the company’s values throughout all procedures, policies and initiatives. Additionally, sustainability can be linked to and reflected in performance evaluations.  Recognising employees who contribute to sustainability goals can incentivise further commitment across the workforce.  Importantly, HR functions should encourage employees to get involved and set the tone that achieving sustainability targets will be a collaborative effort. Employees will often have ideas that could prove valuable in enhancing the company’s approach, and establishing a space for them to comfortably share these ideas through an employee-led sustainability group can work well. Most employees recognise the social and environmental benefits of hybrid working. This is one of the most accessible and impactful sustainable HR practices that helps to reduce emissions while increasing flexibility and supporting individuals with an improved work-life balance. By implementing programmes that support physical and mental health, HR can help create a more resilient and productive workforce. All the evidence shows that sustainable HR practices benefit employee and organisational performance by improving retention, reputation, and engagement. It is clear that sustainable HR practices create a positive work environment. So, how will you begin? Neil Hughes is a Director in Grant Thornton’s People and Change Consulting practice

Who should drive your firm's growth? Mary Cloonan explores whether individual partners or a dedicated leader best fuels expansion Every ambitious firm wants growth, but who should take ownership of it? Is it down to individual partners, or does the firm need a dedicated leader to drive expansion? Many firms have treated growth as an afterthought. Yet, in today’s highly competitive market, this approach is insufficient. The firms that thrive are the ones that prioritise growth across the entire organisation, instead of depending solely on a handful of standout performers. There’s no single answer to the question of who should lead growth, but some models work, particularly in more mature markets like the US, UK, and Australia, where firms have refined their approach for years. Why growth needs to be intentional Growth isn’t just about winning new clients; it’s about maximising opportunities across the board and deepening existing relationships, expanding into new markets, and ensuring that every part of the firm contributes to revenue generation. Whether your firm is backed by private equity or partner-led, the real question is: are you making the most of the opportunities in front of you? Growth is often left to chance. Some partners excel at winning work, while others concentrate on execution. However, when growth relies solely on personal initiative, opportunities can be missed. Implementing a more structured approach ensures that business development isn’t just an added benefit – it’s built into the firm’s DNA. Three effective models for driving growth Firms take different approaches depending on their structure, leadership style, and ambitions. To ensure growth is prioritised and embedded, they use three models. 1. The Chief Growth Officer (CGO) model – a unified approach Appointing a Chief Growth Officer (CGO) can be a game-changer for firms that want a clear, structured approach to growth. This leadership role integrates business development, marketing, client experience and cross selling, ensuring that growth is planned, measured and executed effectively. Rather than simply focusing on new business, a CGO takes responsibility for the entire client journey:  Business development strategy – Aligning development, marketing and client expansion with the firm’s long-term goals. Client experience and retention – Ensuring clients receive excellent service, encouraging referrals and long-term loyalty. Cross-selling and collaboration – Breaking down silos and helping different service lines work together to identify opportunities. Market positioning and thought leadership – Raising the firm’s profile in key sectors to attract high-value clients. Data-driven growth insights – Using client and market data to identify trends and opportunities. This model works well for larger firms, particularly those with ambitious growth plans or PE investment. It ensures growth is handled strategically rather than left to individual efforts. 2. The partner-led growth model – with structure & accountability Many firms still prefer a partner-led approach to business development. This approach can work well if it has structure and accountability. Business development isn’t just left to chance in firms that succeed with this model. Instead, there’s a clear framework: Partners have individual growth targets that are measured and reviewed. Client expansion strategies are mapped out rather than being ad-hoc. There's support from marketing and business development teams to enable partners to focus on high-value relationships. Business development is built into the firm's culture, rather than being something squeezed in between client work. For this model to work, there needs to be a firm-wide commitment to growth, not just an expectation that some partners will bring in work while others don't. 3. The hybrid model – growth champions and collaboration A middle ground between a centralised CGO and a fully partner-driven model is to appoint “growth champions” within the firm. These are senior partners or directors who take responsibility for business development within their practice area or sector. They focus on: Developing relationships and identifying opportunities in their market. Encouraging collaboration between service lines to increase cross-selling. Working with marketing and BD teams to ensure the firm’s positioning aligns with market demand. This approach works well in mid-sized firms where partners are engaged in growth but need more structure and coordination. Your firm’s growth model The best approach depends on the size, ambition, and market focus of the firm: Smaller firms may not need a CGO but should have a structured growth committee. Mid-sized firms often benefit from a hybrid model that balances accountability with collaboration. Larger firms, particularly those preparing for a merger or acquisition or private equity investment, gain the most from a dedicated CGO. What matters most is that growth is not left to chance. Regardless of the model, firms that take growth seriously and build a strategy around it succeed. Your firm and culture Growth isn’t something that just happens. It’s something firms need to be intentional about. In a numbers-based world, there will only be one indicator to say what is right for your firm so tracking the growth KPIs is key to understanding what will work best in your firm with your culture. Mary Cloonan is Founder of Marketing Clever

Case reference Tax head  Legislation  Case stated requested  Matter under consideration    30TACD2025 Capital gains tax   Section 544 TCA 1997 Section 545 TCA 1997 Section 552 TCA 1997 Section 554 TCA 1997 Section 555 TCA 1997 Section 557 TCA 1997 Section 560 TCA 1997 Section 561 TCA 1997  No   The Appellant in this case was a partner in a partnership which had acquired land in 2009. The partnership built and developed a property at a total cost of €23,023,400 which included integrated plant and machinery at a cost of €5,506,195. The plant and machinery qualified in full for capital allowances and the Appellant claimed his proportionate share of the available capital allowances on his income tax returns. Over the period of ownership of the asset, there had been a part disposal and further capital additions leaving a base cost of €19,642,020. The partnership subsequently sold the property to a third party for €20 million; there was no apportionment of the sale price specified in the contract between land and plant and machinery. The property was used solely for the purposes of a trade or profession for the entire period of ownership. The Appellant completed a capital gains tax (CGT) return based on a disposal of a single asset being the land which included the buildings thereon and fixtures therein. The Appellant contended that the qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery was part of the acquisition cost and is an allowable deduction for the purposes of section 552(1). Revenue issued one CG50 clearance for the sale of the land and buildings including the integrated plant and machinery. Revenue submitted that the single asset sold consisted of two distinct elements from a tax perspective. One element was the plant and buildings which had qualified for capital allowances over the period of ownership and the second element being land which had not attracted capital allowances. Revenue stated that as the asset sold comprised of two different types of assets for tax purposes, separate CGT computations were required, and an apportionment was required under section 544 TCA to calculate the capital gain. Revenue argued that the loss accruing on the plant and machinery could not be factored in to reduce the capital gain. It was on this basis that Revenue had issued a notice of amended assessment. The Appellant submitted that when land is sold to a purchaser which necessarily includes all buildings and fixtures and fittings that are integrated into the building, they are an integral part of the building. The Appellant argued that he was therefore entitled to deduct qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery in the CGT calculation. The Appeals Commission held that the method adopted by Revenue was not provided for in Statute and therefore was incorrect.   39TACD2025 Corporation tax   Section 884 TCA 1997 Section 917 TCA 1997 Section 949 TCA 1997 Section 959 TCA 1997 Section 1077 TCA 1997 Section 1084 TCA 1997  No   The Appellant filed corporation tax returns (Form CT1) for the accounting periods 2021 and 2022 by June 2022 and April 2023 respectively and Notices of Assessment were issued by Revenue. The Appellant’s agent encountered IT filing acceptance issues when filing the iXBRL accounts and unknowingly the accounts did not file properly. In 2024, Revenue issued revised Notices of Assessments in respect of both years to include a surcharge for late submission of returns. This was on the basis that iXBRL accounts were not filed by the specified date. The Appellant only became aware on receipt of the revised Notice of Assessments that iXBRL accounts had not been filed. Revenue has issued tax clearance certificates for all years 2021 to 2024 prior to the issue of amended assessments. The Appellant argued that the non-filing of electronic accounts was not intended or deliberate, there was no loss to Revenue and that all taxes were paid on time. Once becoming aware of the issue, there was no unreasonable delay in remedying the matter and accounts were filed within a few days. Revenue stated the Appellant did not provide correspondence at the time of filing the iXBRL accounts for the accounting periods 2021 or 2022 of the technical difficulties encountered. The Appeals Commission held that Revenue correctly applied a surcharge under section 1084(2)(a)(ii) for failing to deliver a return on or before the specified return date. The Appeals Commission held that Revenue correctly applied a surcharge under section 1084(2)(a)(ii) for failing to deliver a return on or before the specified return date.

This edition’s Chartered Accountants Tax Case digest looks at a case in which the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) and restored the previous decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in finding that the taxpayer was not UK tax resident during the tax year having spent a number of days in the UK due to exceptional circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from leaving. The focus of the case was on the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the UK Statutory Residence Test (SRT) with the Court noting in its decision that this needs to be applied to individual circumstance as a whole whilst also highlighting that such circumstances can include the reaction of a taxpayer to matters such as the illness of a close relative, and other moral obligations. Commentators are arguing that this decision essentially appears to loosen the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. At present it is unclear whether HMRC will appeal to the Supreme Court. The UK’s SRT is used to assess if an individual taxpayer is UK tax resident and took effect from 6 April 2013. This case is the first and only case to date in which the SRT has been the subject of an appeal through the UK court system. Background The case was an appeal by the taxpayer against the UT decision which held that the taxpayer was UK tax resident for the tax year ended 5 April 2016. During 2015/16, the appellant taxpayer had received a large dividend but did not include it on her self-assessment return on the basis that it was not taxable in the UK because she was not UK tax resident in that tax year as she was tax resident in Ireland. The concept of ‘days’ spent in the UK lies at the heart of the SRT. Ordinarily, every day when a person is present in the UK at midnight at the end of the day counts for the purposes of the test. However, certain exceptional days may not be counted. Under her particular circumstances, the second automatic overseas test was relevant meaning that as she was not UK tax resident for any of the preceding three tax years prior to 2015/16, as long as she spent fewer than 46 days in the UK in 2015/16, she would not be UK tax resident. Having spent 50 days in the UK during the tax year, the appellant relied on Schedule 45 para 22 (4) of Finance Act 2013 which provides that a day does not count as a day spent in the UK if a person would not be present in the UK at the end of the day but for exceptional circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from leaving the UK and they intend to leave as soon as those circumstances permit. On two visits totalling six days in December 2015 and February 2016 she was present in the UK at the end of the day because she felt compelled to stay to help her sister who was suffering from alcoholism, was suicidal and was failing to look after her children. She therefore argued that she had only spent 44 days in the UK in 2015/16 and was not therefore UK tax resident. HMRC argued that these reasons did not amount to exceptional circumstances, and that the appellant had not been prevented from leaving the UK. HMRC issued a closure notice amending her tax return to include the dividend as taxable income. The appellant appealed to the FTT which allowed her appeal finding that although the need to care for the consequences of her sister’s alcoholism and depression did not, of itself, constitute exceptional circumstances, the fact that the sister had minor children, for whom the appellant also cared, did in their view change the position. The FTT said that it was unnecessary for a legal obligation to care for the children to exist for there to be an exceptional circumstance and stated that moral obligations and obligations of conscience, including those arising by virtue of a close family relationship, can qualify as exceptional circumstances. Finally, the FTT concluded that those obligations may be strong enough to prevent a taxpayer from leaving the UK. HMRC appealed to the UT putting forward four grounds of appeal, all of which were accepted by the UT. The UT overturned the FTT decision finding that the circumstances of the two visits in question were not exceptional, and that the appellant was not prevented from leaving the UK on any of the days by exceptional circumstances. She was therefore UK tax resident in 2015/16 making the dividend taxable income in the UK. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, including that the UT erred in law in its approach to the test as to whether the appellant was prevented from leaving the UK, and in holding that moral obligations cannot be or cannot be part of the exceptional circumstances. Decision At the heart of the taxpayer’s appeal was whether the appellant’s circumstances were exceptional and whether they prevented her from leaving the UK. The Court held that what prevents someone from leaving the country is not limited to certain defined categories such as a legal obligation or physical impossibility, noting that the statutory example of exceptional circumstances in Schedule 45 para 22 (5) of Finance Act 2013 which refers to a ‘sudden or life-threatening illness or injury’ is not specifically limited to the injury or illness of the taxpayer themselves, or of someone for whom they have a legal duty to care. A moral or societal obligation was suffice and in the Court’s view is likely to have also been intended by Parliament. The Court held that the UT had taken too narrow a view of what could constitute an exceptional circumstance and ruled that the moral or societal obligation that the illness of a relative imposes on a taxpayer can form part of the overall circumstance. This should also be taken account of in considering whether the circumstances as a whole are considered exceptional. The Court allowed the appellant’s appeal on all grounds and restored the decision of the FTT. The full judgment is available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/106?query=A+Taxpayer&court=ewca%2Fciv

David Reaney and Emma Robinson explore HMRC’s publication, ‘Help with VAT compliance controls—Guidelines for Compliance GfC8’ and consider the implications for businesses. GfC8 was published in September 2024, but its profile has fallen well short of what would be expected for a publication of this level of detail and potential significance. On 25 September 2024 HMRC published ‘Help with VAT compliance controls—Guidelines for Compliance GfC8’. This publication has 10 parts and, if printed, would exceed 40 pages in length. On the landing page for the publication, HMRC states: “These Guidelines for Compliance (GfC) set out HMRC’s recommended approach and are designed to help you understand our expectations as you plan, carry out, and review the accounting and compliance processes that ensure VAT is accurately declared by your business.” In this article we have summarised, at a high level, the content within the publication. This summary is not intended to provide knowledge of the detail but rather act as a series of prompts to spark the reader’s interest in exploring it further. We expect that many of these concepts should be familiar to larger businesses but perhaps less so for small or medium sized ones. In our experience the existence of this guidance is not widely known and with HMRC’s clear statement around expectations, especially in an environment of increased audit activity, it is important for businesses to ensure they have considered the application of this guidance to their business. 1. Overview—Key Takeaways In our view, the best way to understand and digest the content is to start with two key messages which are threads running through the content. HMRC expect businesses to have written processes and procedures for their VAT compliance. HMRC expects VAT to be included in an overall tax control framework which should include risks identified, controls to address the risks, an identified owner of the risks and processes to monitor the risks and the response on an ongoing basis. In our experience many businesses still do not have detailed written procedures for VAT compliance and a range of different approaches to tax control frameworks is applied. Given HMRC’s assumption that the ‘digital journey’ under Making Tax Digital for VAT is able to be evidenced, e.g. by flow diagram, we expect almost all businesses will have work to do to meet the HMRC expectations as outlined in GfC8. 2. Summary of Guidelines for Compliance GfC8 The guidelines encompass a range of topics designed to cover the tax compliance process and are set out into 10 different parts. The best way to understand how these fit together is to split them into (i) topics focused on the end-to-end VAT compliance process and (ii) topics which have been identified as specific risks within that process. A. End-to-end process 1. Purpose, scope and audience The guidelines are for UK VAT registered businesses who use invoice accounting, meaning they account for VAT when invoices are issued and received (essentially this will be all VAT registered businesses aside from those operating special schemes, e.g. cash accounting). They provide the taxpayer with HMRC’s recommended approach and are designed to help the taxpayer as it carries out and reviews the accounting and compliance processes to ensure VAT is accurately declared. 2. General approach to VAT compliance controls This section provides information on good practices to help manage VAT accounting and compliance processes which includes (but is not limited to): Risk management; Control design considerations; and Documentation for internal controls. 3. Order-to-cash The overall control objective of Order-to-Cash (‘O2C’) is the timely, complete and accurate recording of transaction and payments. O2C represents the typical set of business functions used to manage Business to Business customer orders from sales order, fulfilment, billing, customer payments and recording transactions in financial accounts.  4. Procure-to Pay The overall control objective of Procure-to-Pay (‘P2P’) is the timely, complete and accurate recording of transactions and payments received. P2P represents the typical set of business functions used to manage Business to Business purchasing processes and include purchase orders, receipt of supply, tax invoice being received, credit notes and discount adjustments and supplier payments. 5. Record to report Record to report (‘R2R’) is an accounting process which involves collecting, processing and presenting information to provide strategic, financial and operational analysis. It also covers the steps involved in preparing and reporting the overall accounts. R2R covers both external and internal reporting and generally, the R2R function is not engaged in processing transactions but instead focuses on the aggregation of existing data to meet reporting requirements. B. Specific risk areas identified 6. Employee expenses Often viewed as a high-risk area by HMRC, expenses processes exist for capturing, authorising and paying various kinds of reimbursed business costs to employees. HMRC has set out guidance for various control points on employee expenses relating to the system configuration, the expense process, business entertainment and auditing the expense claims. 7. VAT reporting Relevant for business who adopt invoice accounting, it includes detail on VAT reporting control objectives for the following categories (note this list is not exhaustive): Organisational unit structure, General ledger posting, Making Tax Digital for VAT regulations, VAT reports, Consolidation of return figures, and Manual adjustments.  8. VAT reporting—manual adjustments Manual adjustments to VAT reporting can occur for different reasons including consolidation of totals from separate business functions or systems. HMRC have included detail on control objectives for common types of adjustments including adjustments for errors and corrections, how to deal with one-off or irregular supplies such as disposal of assets, adjustments under the capital goods scheme or partial exemption restrictions and bad debt adjustments. 9. Outsourcing Businesses processes such as IT services, legal services, financial and accounting services can be outsourced as well as the businesses VAT compliance function. Even where the business chooses to outsource some functions this does not outsource the risk, and legal responsibility remains with the commissioning organisation. 10. Next steps It is expected that businesses may recognise new elements of good practice and it is HMRC’s view that implementing the guidelines can lead to improvements in systems and processes. Businesses are encouraged to take proactive steps to ensure compliance which might include: Reviewing and updating record-keeping practices; Implementing internal compliance audits; Developing a compliance strategy; Engaging with HMRC; and Stay informed about penalties.  3. Conclusion Despite its low profile to date, this guidance marks a key development in the UK's tax compliance landscape. By outlining clear expectations and emphasising the importance of transparency, accountability, and communication, these guidelines aim to foster a more compliant and efficient business environment. Businesses should take proactive steps to align with these guidelines, ensuring that they are well-prepared. With careful planning, businesses can navigate the new compliance framework successfully and avoid potential penalties for non-compliance. Referring back to the two key messages outlined above, we would encourage businesses to review internal written processes on controls and the overall tax control framework to ensure that these would at least meet, if not exceed, HMRC’s expectations. Perhaps the best way to assess your current position is to consider how you would demonstrate that you meet HMRC’s expectations should you be asked to do so in a VAT visit in the near future. Finally, we would encourage particular attention is paid to the specific areas of risk such as employee expenses. If you have queries about any specific section, please contact us. David Reaney FCA, CTA, is Indirect Tax Partner at KPMG Emma Robinson CTA, Indirect Tax Associate Director at KPMG