header-logo header-logo

Taxing matters

15 July 2016 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7707 / Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail
nlj_7707_vaines

Peter Vaines delves into some most interesting tax issues

  • Entrepreneurs relief.
  • New DOTAS hallmark.
  • Restricted securities
  • Careless conduct.

The recent case of Mr and Mrs McQuillan v HMRC TC 5074 gives rise to a most interesting issue (actually, if anybody else finds this interesting, they should buy an anorak and come on holiday with me).

The taxpayers each held 33 ordinary shares of £1 each in a trading company. Other shareholders had 30,000 non-voting shares which had no rights to dividends.

The question was whether these 30,000 non-voting shares were “ordinary shares” for the purposes of entrepreneurs’ relief because if they were, the taxpayers obviously did not have the necessary five per cent of the ordinary share capital enabling them to qualify for the relief.

Section 989 of the Income Tax Act 2007 provides the definition of ordinary share capital as follows: “All the company’s issued share capital (however described) other than capital the holders of which have a right to a dividend at a fixed rate

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Moore Barlow—Jess Ready & Natasha Jones

Moore Barlow—Jess Ready & Natasha Jones

Commercial property and corporate teams expand in Southampton

Watershed—Rob Elliott

Watershed—Rob Elliott

Employment firm expands capability with experienced hire

Devonshires—Aoife Murphy & Mandeep Sahota

Devonshires—Aoife Murphy & Mandeep Sahota

Housing management and property litigation team bolstered by partner hires

NEWS
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Delays at HM Land Registry are no longer a background irritation but a growing source of professional risk. Writing in NLJ this week, Phil Murrin of DAC Beachcroft explores how the ‘registration gap’—now stretching up to two years in complex cases—is fuelling client frustration, priority disputes, and negligence claims
back-to-top-scroll