EIS relief

FORTHCOMING CHANGES to EIS and VCT financial limits and call for evidence on tax support for entrepreneurs: At Budget 2025, the government announced a reduction in the upfront income tax relief for an individual on the amount invested in a VCT from 30% to 20%. The upfront income tax relief for EIS remains at 30%.

It also announced three measures relating to both the EIS and VCT schemes:

  1. an increase to the annual investment limits that companies can raise under the EIS and VCT schemes from £5m to £10m and from £10m to £20m for knowledge-intensive companies (KICs)

  2. an increase in the lifetime company risk finance investment limit from £12m to £24m and from £20m to £40m for KICs, and

  3. an increase in the gross assets limit that an investee company must not exceed from £15m to £30m before the shares are issued, and from £16m to £35m, after that point

These changes are to be legislated in Finance Bill 2026 to take effect from 6 April 2026.Also at Budget 2025, the government published a call for evidence (closing date: 28

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 section 75A FA 2003 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