SEIS relief

The seed enterprise investment scheme (SEIS), like the enterprise investment scheme (EIS), is designed to encourage investment in smaller, higher-risk trading, unquoted companies by offering a range of tax reliefs to individual investors purchasing newly issued shares in those companies.

SEIS tax reliefs

In summary, there are three principal SEIS reliefs available to qualifying individual investors, one concerning income tax and two concerning capital gains tax (CGT):

  1. income tax relief at 50% of the amount invested, up to an annual investment limit of £200,000 (subject to clawback if the shares are disposed of within three years)

  2. CGT exemption (disposal relief) on any capital gain realised on a disposal of shares that qualified for SEIS income tax relief and were held for three years, and

  3. CGT re-investment relief providing a CGT exemption for 50% of any gains realised on the disposal of assets in a tax year and re-invested in the same tax year in shares qualifying for SEIS income tax relief up to a maximum exemption of £100,000.

Additionally, there are two other tax reliefs, which are not SEIS-specific, but generally apply to

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