One minute with Matthew Sharp, Partner at Brown Rudnick.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
I recently joined Brown Rudnick, an international law firm with offices across the USA and in the UK, to establish their tax controversy team. I have been incredibly busy setting up the team (which has already expanded) and winning new mandates. It’s been fun and engrossing!
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Two things stand out. First, your career is a marathon not a sprint. I know this sounds cliché – and it probably is – but focus on enjoying every stage of your career, not just on getting to the next stage. Second, never forget the importance of integrity. As a litigator, there are times to be firm and push boundaries when advocating for your clients, but this should never be at the expense of your integrity. Always strive to do ‘what’s right’ and trust your gut.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
Before moving into tax litigation, I specialised as a commercial litigator and a professional liability solicitor – which is why tax-related professional negligence claims now make up a significant part of my practice. Over the last decade, I have seen first hand the devastating impact of promoters of tax avoidance schemes. In this context, I support (and indeed champion) Dan Neidle’s efforts in lobbying for the introduction of further measures to dissuade the proliferation of tax avoidance schemes. As this is a subject close to my heart, I’ve thought about possible measures that could assist. One measure could be to impose personal liability on promoters of aggressive tax avoidance – although we would need to carefully define what ‘aggressive tax avoidance’ means. Another measure could be to make changes to extend the limitation periods under the Limitation Act 1980 in the context of tax avoidance schemes. I would also advocate for a review of DOTAS, to see how it can be further improved. I also welcome the proposals in the current consultation on closing in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance.
Are any new rules causing a particular problem in practice?
In my practice, we are seeing an increasing number of disputes that just relate to (often significant) penalties. This has been driven, for example, by Failure to Correct penalties (under the Requirement to Correct regime). Potential 200% penalties can turn modest issues into significant issues. HMRC are currently consulting on the simplification of behavioural penalties – and they are considering whether certain penalties should exceed 100% of the potential lost revenue (outside the context of offshore non-compliance). My concern is that this could generate further and unnecessary satellite litigation on penalties, rather than changing behaviours or narrowing the tax gap.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
I was particularly interested in the recent Upper Tribunal case of George Mantides Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 124 (TCC). This case appears to me to be part of a wider HMRC activity challenging employments status for tax for regulated professionals (doctors, pharmacists, dentists, etc.). There are some interesting questions on ‘control’ and the ‘framework of control’ arising from this case. We saw this also in HMRC v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29 – so this is definitely an area I’ve got my eye on!
You might not know this about me but...
My happy place is roaming around Orlando theme parks with my husband and twin boys. Enjoying quality family time recharges me to creatively solve my client’s problems.
One minute with Matthew Sharp, Partner at Brown Rudnick.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
I recently joined Brown Rudnick, an international law firm with offices across the USA and in the UK, to establish their tax controversy team. I have been incredibly busy setting up the team (which has already expanded) and winning new mandates. It’s been fun and engrossing!
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Two things stand out. First, your career is a marathon not a sprint. I know this sounds cliché – and it probably is – but focus on enjoying every stage of your career, not just on getting to the next stage. Second, never forget the importance of integrity. As a litigator, there are times to be firm and push boundaries when advocating for your clients, but this should never be at the expense of your integrity. Always strive to do ‘what’s right’ and trust your gut.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
Before moving into tax litigation, I specialised as a commercial litigator and a professional liability solicitor – which is why tax-related professional negligence claims now make up a significant part of my practice. Over the last decade, I have seen first hand the devastating impact of promoters of tax avoidance schemes. In this context, I support (and indeed champion) Dan Neidle’s efforts in lobbying for the introduction of further measures to dissuade the proliferation of tax avoidance schemes. As this is a subject close to my heart, I’ve thought about possible measures that could assist. One measure could be to impose personal liability on promoters of aggressive tax avoidance – although we would need to carefully define what ‘aggressive tax avoidance’ means. Another measure could be to make changes to extend the limitation periods under the Limitation Act 1980 in the context of tax avoidance schemes. I would also advocate for a review of DOTAS, to see how it can be further improved. I also welcome the proposals in the current consultation on closing in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance.
Are any new rules causing a particular problem in practice?
In my practice, we are seeing an increasing number of disputes that just relate to (often significant) penalties. This has been driven, for example, by Failure to Correct penalties (under the Requirement to Correct regime). Potential 200% penalties can turn modest issues into significant issues. HMRC are currently consulting on the simplification of behavioural penalties – and they are considering whether certain penalties should exceed 100% of the potential lost revenue (outside the context of offshore non-compliance). My concern is that this could generate further and unnecessary satellite litigation on penalties, rather than changing behaviours or narrowing the tax gap.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
I was particularly interested in the recent Upper Tribunal case of George Mantides Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 124 (TCC). This case appears to me to be part of a wider HMRC activity challenging employments status for tax for regulated professionals (doctors, pharmacists, dentists, etc.). There are some interesting questions on ‘control’ and the ‘framework of control’ arising from this case. We saw this also in HMRC v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29 – so this is definitely an area I’ve got my eye on!
You might not know this about me but...
My happy place is roaming around Orlando theme parks with my husband and twin boys. Enjoying quality family time recharges me to creatively solve my client’s problems.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=c9a7a0cc_1)
