Under the Companies Act 2006, dividends can only be paid from realised profits, never from capital, no matter what a company’s Articles of Association say.

Dividends can only be paid by a company out of profits available for distribution, not from capital, even if the company’s Articles of Association suggest otherwise. This rule is established under Companies Act 2006, section 830, and forms a key legal restriction on dividend payments.

Profits available for distribution are defined as a company’s accumulated, realised profits (from both revenue and capital), not previously distributed or capitalised, minus its accumulated, realised losses, provided these losses haven’t already been written off through a formal reduction or reorganisation of capital.

HMRC’s internal manuals go further and state that the Act lays down what may be termed the ‘balance sheet surplus’ method of determining profits available for distribution. Under this, a company can distribute the net profit on both capital and revenue at the particular time, as shown by the relevant accounts.

Additional rules apply to certain types of companies including investment and public companies.

If a call from your bank feels suspicious, just hang up and dial 159 to be connected safely to your bank’s fraud team.

The 159 helpline was launched in September 2021. The helpline is designed to help consumers quickly and safely reconnect with their bank when they receive a suspicious or unexpected call about a financial matter. 159 now works for over 99% of UK retail bank customers, providing an extra layer of protection against phone scams.

If you receive a call that feels off, hang up and dial 159. This short code cannot be spoofed or imitated, unlike many regular phone numbers. It connects you directly to your bank’s fraud team, helping you verify the legitimacy of any request before acting.

The memorable number, with the digits forming a diagonal on the keypad "159", has already been used over 800,000 times since its launch. It works with most major UK banks, including Bank of Scotland, Barclays, First Direct, Halifax, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander, Monzo, Starling and Virgin Money.

There are ongoing plans to expand and enhance the service including a proposal for having Ofcom designate 159 as a mandatory “Type A” number, like 999 or 111.

If you receive a call purporting to be from your bank that is concerning, calling 159 is a fast, secure way to protect yourself and your finances.

Did you know a missing Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) record could reduce your State Pension, but you may still have time to put it right.

Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) was a scheme designed to help individuals, mainly those with caring responsibilities, to build entitlement to the basic State Pension by reducing the number of qualifying years required. HRP applied between 6 April 1978 and 5 April 2010, after which it was replaced by National Insurance (NI) credits.

Although most eligible individuals received HRP automatically during that period, some cases were missed. It’s still possible to apply for HRP retrospectively if it’s missing from your NI record. This is particularly relevant for women at or near State Pension age, especially those who took extended time off work to raise children. A missing HRP record could affect your State Pension entitlement, although not always.

Those affected should check their NI records for gaps and could potentially increase their State Pension at no cost. If a claim is successful, HMRC will update the NI record, and the DWP will recalculate the State Pension amount. This could lead to an increase in the State pension, though in some cases, it may remain unchanged.

Currently, HRP applications are taking over 3 months to process. For the most recent processing times and to check the status of an existing claim you can visit the official HMRC guidance page at www.gov.uk/guidance/check-when-you-can-expect-a-reply-from-hmrc

1 September 2025 – Due date for corporation tax due for the year ended 30 November 2024.

19 September 2025 – PAYE and NIC deductions due for month ended 5 September 2025. (If you pay your tax electronically the due date is 22 September 2025)

19 September 2025 – Filing deadline for the CIS300 monthly return for the month ended 5 September 2025. 

19 September 2025 – CIS tax deducted for the month ended 5 September 2025 is payable by today.

1 October 2025 – Due date for Corporation Tax due for the year ended 31 December 2024.

19 October 2025 – PAYE and NIC deductions due for month ended 5 October 2025. (If you pay your tax electronically the due date is 22 October 2025)

19 October 2025 – Filing deadline for the CIS300 monthly return for the month ended 5 October 2025. 

19 October 2025 – CIS tax deducted for the month ended 5 October 2025 is payable by today.

31 October 2025 – Latest date you can file a paper version of your 2024-25 self-assessment tax return.

The question was raised as to whether, in a tripartite agency relationship, an employment relationship exists between an employee and their intermediary agency. For instance, Ryanair DAC employs some pilots directly, while subcontracting others. A Mr. Lutz successfully applied to an advertisement for pilots and was contracted on 10 August 2017 by MCG Aviation Ltd. (now Storm Global Ltd.). From July 2018 to January 2020, Mr. Lutz served as a Ryanair-contracted pilot based at Stansted, nominally supplying his services through his own Irish company, Dishford Port Ltd., although it is now accepted that his direct relationship was with MCG. 

Following an incident with Ryanair management on 13 January 2020, MCG terminated its contract with Dishford, effectively ending Mr. Lutz's services. He then brought two claims to tribunal with the support of the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) concerning annual leave against MCG under the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations (CAWTR) 2004, and also an equal terms claim against both MCG and Ryanair. Through this action, Mr. Lutz was seeking compensation for not being afforded the same working conditions as employed pilots under the Agency Workers Regulations (AWR) 2010. 

The tribunal found in Mr. Lutz's favour, holding that he was a "crew member" employed by MCG under CAWTR and also an "agency worker" under AWR. Subsequent appeals by Ryanair and MCG were dismissed as, where a worker is supplied by an agency (B) to a principal (C), but has an explicit contract with the agency, the agency remains the employer. Mr. Lutz's services to Ryanair were thus explicitly governed by his contract with MCG, which expressly stated that he was not employed by Ryanair. The fact that Ryanair exercised exclusive direction and control over Mr. Lutz's work does not necessarily create an implied employment contract or relationship with Ryanair, although it befell MCG to ensure that Ryanair respected the relevant employment laws. Moreover, even though Mr. Lutz had a fixed-term contract for several years, it was nonetheless "temporary", thereby creating a gap in protection for agency workers and introducing ‘unacceptable uncertainty’. 

This case reinforces the "substance over form" approach in determining employment status, in that employers can no longer solely rely on contractual labels such as "independent consultant" or "self-employed" as a pretext to deny workers their employment rights, especially in such tripartite agency arrangements. Thus, agencies should understand that workers employed for extended fixed terms are likely still covered by the AWR and thereby entitled to the same T&Cs as direct employees after 12 weeks. Hence, agencies still have clear responsibilities for certain statutory rights, and businesses relying on "supply chain layering" to outsource labour will need to review their structures.