Dividends and distributions

What is a distribution?

A distribution for corporation tax purposes means any of the following:

  1. A

    any dividend paid by the company, including a capital dividend

  2. B

    any other distribution out of assets of the company (whether or not in cash) in respect of shares in the company except however much (if any) of the distribution:

    1. represents repayment of capital on the shares, or

    2. is (when it is made) equal in amount or value to any new consideration received by the company for the distribution

  3. C

    any redeemable share capital issued by the company:

    1. in respect of shares in, or securities of, the company, and

    2. otherwise than for new consideration

  4. D

    any security issued by the company:

    1. in respect of shares in, or securities of, the company, and

    2. otherwise than for new consideration

  5. E

    any interest or other distribution out of assets of the company in respect of securities of the company that are non-commercial securities, except:

    1. however much (if any) of the distribution

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Upper Tribunal denies EIS relief as trade not commenced (Putney Power and Piston Heating v HMRC)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) has held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT) made a material error of law in its approach to determining when a trade has ‘begun to be carried on’ by a company for the purposes of qualifying for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief under section 179(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The FTT had identified a set of principles by reference to factors which were of relevance in previous cases and applied those ‘legal’ principles to determine that neither Putney Power Limited (‘Putney’) nor Piston Hearing Services Ltd (‘Piston’) had begun to carry on a trade by the relevant date of 4 April 2018. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis that the FTT had sought to apply a principles-based test which did not exist as a matter of law. The proper approach requires a multi-factorial evaluation of all of the circumstances in the case at hand. The UT re-made the decision but ultimately reached the same conclusion as the FTT, dismissing the appeals of both Putney and Piston and holding that neither company had commenced trading by the relevant date. The decision is significant because it clarifies that there is no strict legal test for when a trade commences: the question remains highly fact sensitive and will be determined by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Written by Kate Ison (partner at Macfarlanes LLP) and Victoria Braid (associate at macfarlanes LLP).

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents