The following Tax practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
The rules dealing with depreciatory transactions and dividend stripping are anti-avoidance provisions.
They target the artificial transfer of value out of a company by either:
a transfer of assets from one member of a group to another otherwise than for market value, or
the payment of dividends out of profits realised during periods falling before the shares in respect of which such dividends were paid were acquired
and which reduce the value of the shares or securities of that company.
Without the rules, value could be shifted from one asset to another in order to inflate allowable losses on the ultimate disposal of shares (or securities) in the company whose asset value has been stripped.
Most depreciatory transactions take place between companies which are grouped for chargeable gains purposes because they are likely to require a control relationship to exist, and be exercised, to ensure that the non-arm's length transaction takes place.
The rules are also extended to apply equally to certain (dividend stripping) distributions by a company to a corporate shareholder with an interest of at least 10% in the distributing company.
The rules operate by restricting any allowable loss claimed by the seller making the ultimate disposal.
Unlike the value shifting regime, the depreciatory transaction rules cannot:
create or increase a gain, or
impose a tax charge at the time of the depreciatory transaction
For a discussion of the
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Unlike many other countries, the UK has no unfair competition law. Brand owners seeking to prevent competitors from marketing ‘copycat’ products or using misleading advertising have to rely on a combination of different intellectual property rights. These rights include the common law right to
ContractWhere a contract is made by two or more parties it may contain a promise or obligation made by two or more of those parties. Any such promise may be:•joint•several, or•joint and severalWhether an undertaking is joint, several, or joint and several in contract is a question of construction
This Practice Note covers the legal framework and regulatory guidance to be considered in determining whether an arrangement constitutes a contract of insurance and the possible consequences of carrying on activities relating to a contract of insurance without the requisite regulatory permissionsThe
Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009) is a specific corporation tax regime that applies exclusively to the gains and losses of intangible fixed assets. Note, however, that certain intangible fixed assets are excluded from the regime, see Practice Note: Excluded intangible fixed
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.