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 but have no other right to share in the company’s profits.”

The

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll