UK 2015 Budget–Changes to the North Sea Tax Regime

Apr 9, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Hannah Marshall, trainee solicitor (not admitted to practice)

What are the 2015 Budget oil and gas tax cuts?

Reduction to Supplementary Charge

  • The headline change is a reduction in the supplementary charge from 30 percent to 20 percent. The supplementary charge is applied on a company’s ring-fenced oil and gas profits and is in addition to corporation tax (applied at 30 percent).
  • This reduction follows a recent 2 percent reduction down to 30 percent (from 32 percent) announced in the Autumn Statement 2014 and represents a dramatic turnaround, given that the charge was raised to 32 percent (from 20 percent) only in 2011.
  • The reduction in supplementary charge will be backdated, with effect from 1 January 2015.

Reduction to Petroleum Revenue Tax

  • The Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT) rate will be reduced from 50 percent to 35 percent, with effect from 1 January 2016.
  • PRT is an individual field-based tax on profits from oil and gas production that applies to only mature fields that were given development consent before 16 March 1993. 

UK Continental Shelf Investment Allowance

  • A new investment allowance has been introduced, reducing the profits subject to the supplementary charge tax and simplifying the existing ad hoc allowance regime.   
  • The investment allowance is designed to encourage new spending and will remove an amount equal to 62.5 percent of investment expenditure from a company’s ring-fenced profits.
  • The allowance will apply to investment expenditure incurred on or after 1 April 2015.

What are the reactions to the changes?

The U.K. Treasury proclaims the proposed tax cuts as worth £1.3 billion to the industry and expects the changes to result in an additional £4 billion of additional investment, with extra production of 120 million barrels.

While the market seems to view these changes positively and agree that the tax cuts do increase the possibility of greater investment, notes of caution have been sounded by many commentators, who warn that these tax changes are not alone enough to revive the North Sea region. Many commentators argue that there needs to be a greater focus on exploration incentives and the current decommissioning regime, which poses a significant barrier to investment, given the mature nature of many fields in the region.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 24, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) directing NYISO and NYISO transmission owners to show cause as to why NYISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) directing MISO and MISO transmission owners to show cause as to why MISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. directing PJM and PJM transmission owners to show cause as to why PJM’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.