Loans

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to UK withholding tax on yearly interest from 6 April 2026 and from 6 April 2027: Finance Bill 2026 (FB 2026) contains a provision which will replace the reference in ITA 2007, s 874 to ‘the basic rate’ with a reference to ‘the savings basic rate’, so that from 6 April 2026 the provision will require a sum representing income tax at the savings basic rate to be deducted from a UK source payment of yearly interest. Although the savings basic rate is set at 20% for the 2026–27 tax year, as a result of the FB 2026, it will increase to 22% from 6 April 2027. Consequently, from 6 April 2027, the rate of income tax to be deducted from a UK source yearly payment of interest will be 22%.

A company's loan capital is, broadly, money that it has borrowed. It represents the company's debt.

What is debt?

Loan capital (debt) can, broadly, be compared and contrasted with share capital (equity). The distinction between debt and equity is critical but not always obvious. Some of the key features of debt

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