Loans

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 are:

  1. creditors (lenders) rank ahead of shareholders during an insolvency procedure (ie a lender will need to be repaid before a shareholder)

  2. debt normally attracts some form of regular return (eg interest) whereas shares will entitle holders to dividends but only if the company has sufficient distributable reserves to fund them and the board approves them

  3. unlike equity, the value of a company's debt will not (normally) be linked to the performance of the company itself, and

  4. from a tax perspective, the cost of borrowing money (eg interest) will normally be deductible in calculating a company's profits (ie it is 'above the line')—by contrast, dividends and other distributions, broadly payable on equity instruments, will not be deductible (ie they are paid out of the company's net profit and so are 'below the line')

Borrowing

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