Islamic finance/Alternative finance arrangements

What is Shari'a-compliant financing?

Shari'a-compliant financing arrangements, also known as Islamic financing arrangements, are designed to comply with Shari'a or Islamic law, which is a legal system based on the religion of Islam.

To comply with Shari’a law, Islamic financing arrangements must adhere to a number of principles, the key ones being:

  1. participation and sharing of profit and risk—by encouraging participation, equity and fair dealing, increases in wealth are encouraged to accrue from productive activities and not the mere passage of time. Return on capital is legitimised by risk-taking and determined by asset performance or project productivity. Lending relationship are viewed as partnerships and financiers should share in any risks, profits and losses

  2. prohibition on interest—in accordance with other principles of Shari’a law, such as participation (above), money has no intrinsic value and must not on its own create more money

  3. prohibition on uncertainty—to ensure that no party has an unfair advantage over another and to decrease the likelihood of contractual disputes between the parties

  4. prohibition on speculation—profit should be made through hard work and effort, not purely by chance

  5. no

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