The ‘no disqualifying arrangements requirement’ (ITA 2007 s 178A) was introduced into the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) legislation by FA 2012 and applies to all EIS shares that have been issued since 6 April 2012.
It was introduced as anti-avoidance legislation to target arrangements which the Government saw arguably rightly as outside the spirit of the legislation. Usually these involved either the artificial separation of businesses into qualifying and non-qualifying activities or where the main motive of the company was to return tax savings to shareholders. However as we often find with anti-avoidance legislation the drafting goes far wider than the situations that drove its introduction.
The recent case of Hoopla Animation Ltd (formerly known as Daisy Boo and Monkey Too Ltd) v HMRC [2025] UKUT 28 (TCC)...
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:
The ‘no disqualifying arrangements requirement’ (ITA 2007 s 178A) was introduced into the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) legislation by FA 2012 and applies to all EIS shares that have been issued since 6 April 2012.
It was introduced as anti-avoidance legislation to target arrangements which the Government saw arguably rightly as outside the spirit of the legislation. Usually these involved either the artificial separation of businesses into qualifying and non-qualifying activities or where the main motive of the company was to return tax savings to shareholders. However as we often find with anti-avoidance legislation the drafting goes far wider than the situations that drove its introduction.
The recent case of Hoopla Animation Ltd (formerly known as Daisy Boo and Monkey Too Ltd) v HMRC [2025] UKUT 28 (TCC)...
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: