In CO Richards v HMRC (and related appeal) (Upper Tribunal – 10 November) an individual (R) claimed EIS relief in respect of money he had subscribed to a company (S) which operated two restaurants. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that S had kept most of the money in an instant access account so that 80% of the money subscribed had not been ‘employed’ in S’s trade within the statutory qualifying twelve-month period. R and S appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed their appeals. Nowlan J observed that the legislation ‘imposes a definite time period within which different percentages of the cash raised by a share issue must be employed in the trade and they admit of no exception for the situation where the directors wanted to meet the test but were unable to do so’. The Upper Tribunal upheld...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In CO Richards v HMRC (and related appeal) (Upper Tribunal – 10 November) an individual (R) claimed EIS relief in respect of money he had subscribed to a company (S) which operated two restaurants. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that S had kept most of the money in an instant access account so that 80% of the money subscribed had not been ‘employed’ in S’s trade within the statutory qualifying twelve-month period. R and S appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed their appeals. Nowlan J observed that the legislation ‘imposes a definite time period within which different percentages of the cash raised by a share issue must be employed in the trade and they admit of no exception for the situation where the directors wanted to meet the test but were unable to do so’. The Upper Tribunal upheld...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
