PRT: unitisations and re-determinations - re-determination claims
A re-determination does not have retrospective effect for PRT purposes and does not make claims for earlier periods incorrect, as they were correctly made by reference to the participators’ interests then applying.
OTA75\Sch4\Para1 debars relief on a specific basis for the adjusting payments made by the acquiring or under-invested parties. However, LBS Oil & Gas accepts that, by reference to OTA75\Sch5\Para2(4)(b), the responsible person is entitled, in making allocations for the period of re-determination, to reflect the impact of the adjustment in that period on past expenditure. Accordingly the position for claim periods prior to the re-determination is dealt with by the submission, by the responsible person, of a Schedule 5 claim comprising the net cash payments, excluding any interest or related payments. In practice therefore a “stand in shoes” approach is followed and a “nil claim” is accepted for the re-determination period reflecting the adjustments necessary to give effect to the revised sharings of the earlier incurred expenditure. Since the sums paid by the under-invested parties should equal in total the sums received by the over-invested parties the claim will usually be for “nil” expenditure and “nil” supplement.
Note that disallowances applicable only to certain participators (e.g. by virtue of OTA75\Sch4\Para2) may give a slightly different net end result. The balancing process, therefore, involves the allowance in accordance with OTA75\Sch5\Para2(4)(b) of additional expenditure and supplement to the “acquiring group” balanced by the withdrawal of the same expenditure and supplement from the “disposing group”. Before or after safeguard this gives a satisfactory solution to all parties but during safeguard the payer may lose full effective relief (see OT17700).
The re-determination claim should cover all the Schedule 5 claims for claim periods ended prior to the date of the re-determination. It is normally based on the expenditure included in those claims but occasionally it can be based on the expenditure and supplement actually allowed on decisions on the claims in question. In such a case the re-determination claim is normally agreed in full, with further adjustments being made when the original claims are settled.
The “Nil” re-determination claim often applies only to “capital” expenditure. Over- and under- allocations of operating expenditure can be dealt with by make-up adjustments in the period(s) following re-determination, as discussed at OT18290.
See OT13060 regarding the effect on past CFA elections.