AIM

Various tax incentives are, in principle, available to investors (mostly individuals) investing in unlisted shares and securities such as shares admitted to trading on AIM. AIM is one of the markets owned and operated by the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and is aimed at small and medium size growth companies. Shares and securities are not listed for UK tax purposes just because they have been admitted to trading on AIM. Consequently, many of the tax incentives for investing in unquoted companies apply, in principle, to investments in AIM companies but it is important to check that all the conditions for the relevant tax relief to apply have been satisfied.

Although shares and securities traded on AIM are colloquially referred to as 'listed on AIM', they are in fact not listed, but rather admitted to trading on AIM. If a company has shares or securities admitted to trading on AIM and it has no other shares or securities that are listed on a recognised stock exchange, the company is an unquoted company.

The policy behind the tax reliefs available to investors in unlisted shares and

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

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents