header-logo header-logo

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

Taxing matters

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll