In Segesta Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 June) a company (S) had a subsidiary company (B) that operated a football club and had suffered financial difficulties. In 1999 S’s controlling shareholder (O) subscribed for further shares in S. S applied for authority to issue EIS certificates to O. HMRC rejected the application on the grounds that B owed money to O that S’s subscription had been used to repay that debt and that the subscription was an arrangement within TCGA 1992 Sch 5B para 13.
S appealed contending that payments which had previously been described as loans should instead be treated as having been made on capital account. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal finding that O had previously made significant loans to B. Although certain...
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 Segesta Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 June) a company (S) had a subsidiary company (B) that operated a football club and had suffered financial difficulties. In 1999 S’s controlling shareholder (O) subscribed for further shares in S. S applied for authority to issue EIS certificates to O. HMRC rejected the application on the grounds that B owed money to O that S’s subscription had been used to repay that debt and that the subscription was an arrangement within TCGA 1992 Sch 5B para 13.
S appealed contending that payments which had previously been described as loans should instead be treated as having been made on capital account. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail rejected this contention and dismissed the appeal finding that O had previously made significant loans to B. Although certain...
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:
