header-logo header-logo

15 July 2016 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7707 / Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

nlj_7707_vaines

Peter Vaines delves into some most interesting tax issues

  • Entrepreneurs relief.
  • New DOTAS hallmark.
  • Restricted securities
  • Careless conduct.

The recent case of Mr and Mrs McQuillan v HMRC TC 5074 gives rise to a most interesting issue (actually, if anybody else finds this interesting, they should buy an anorak and come on holiday with me).

The taxpayers each held 33 ordinary shares of £1 each in a trading company. Other shareholders had 30,000 non-voting shares which had no rights to dividends.

The question was whether these 30,000 non-voting shares were “ordinary shares” for the purposes of entrepreneurs’ relief because if they were, the taxpayers obviously did not have the necessary five per cent of the ordinary share capital enabling them to qualify for the relief.

Section 989 of the Income Tax Act 2007 provides the definition of ordinary share capital as follows: “All the company’s issued share capital (however described) other than capital the holders of which have a right to a dividend at a fixed rate

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll