VCTs

Like the enterprise investment scheme (EIS), the venture capital trust (VCT) regime is designed to encourage investment in smaller, higher-risk trading companies.

A VCT is a company (not a trust), approved by HMRC, whose shares are admitted to trading in such a way that they meet the listing condition explained in Practice Note: VCTs—VCT conditions for HMRC approval—The listing condition.

Individuals can benefit from a range of tax reliefs, and spread their investment risk, by subscribing for (or, in the case of some of those reliefs, buying) shares in a VCT, which, in turn, subscribes for newly issued shares or debt in unquoted companies (companies listed on AIM are unquoted for these purposes).

Summary of VCT tax reliefs

There are three principal tax reliefs potentially available to qualifying individual investors in VCTs, two concerning income tax and one concerning capital gains tax (CGT):

  1. investment income tax relief at 30% of the amount subscribed for new ordinary shares in a VCT, up to the annual investment limit in VCTs of £200,000 (VCT Annual Limit), and subject to clawback if the shares are disposed of within five years

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