| Home > Tax Articles > Business Tax > Share Sale 'Trap' |
| Share Sale 'Trap' |
|
|
|
Mark McLaughlin CTA (Fellow) ATT TEP highlights a potential pitfall regarding the 'loans to participators' tax rules. Inter-company loansIt is not an uncommon ‘exit’ strategy for retiring shareholders to sell their shares to a newly-formed holding company. This can happen in management buyout (MBO) situations, or possibly for tax or commercial reasons of the purchaser. For example, ‘Holdco’ may offer shares or cash to all shareholders of ‘Tradeco’, with the exiting shareholder(s) of Tradeco taking cash, and any remaining shareholders taking shares in Holdco. The share sale is often financed by a loan from the target company to the holding company. As an aside, apart from any company law considerations, for tax purposes it will generally be appropriate to seek clearance from HMRC under ITA 2007, s 701 and TCGA 1992, s 138 in respect of the ‘Transactions in securities’ and ‘Share-for-share exchange’ rules respectively. Section 419(5)The tax charge on close companies under the ‘loans to participators’ rules (TA 1988, s 419) is relatively well known and understood. However, the potential for a section 419 charge is less well known in respect of loans between companies. Section 419(5) states:
Applying those conditions to the earlier example:
On the face of it, a 25% charge potentially arises for Tradeco, unless the ‘loan’ is repaid within nine months and a day following the end of the accounting period. The charge is not widely applied by HMRC, but it is an issue that they are aware of (see the Company Taxation Manual at paragraph 61670). Preventing the chargeDepending on the circumstances, it may be possible to structure the share sale in such a way that the potential for a section 419 charge does not arise. If this is not possible, or if the deal has already taken place, consideration could be given to whether ‘Tradeco’ (in the above example) could pay a dividend up to Holdco during the above nine month period, to enable the loan to be repaid. Of course, this will depend upon such issues as Tradeco having sufficient distributable reserves.
The above article is taken from 'Practice Update', a bi-monthly Newsletter from Mark McLaughlin Associates Ltd (http://www.markmclaughlin.co.uk/index.php/archives/category/about/newsletters)
|
|||
|
About The Author ![]() Mark McLaughlin is TaxationWeb's Co-Founder, Director and Technical Editor. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners. He lectures on tax subjects, is co-author of Tottel's IHT Annual and Ray & McLaughlin's IHT Planning, and Editor of Tottel's Tax Planning and Annual series. Mark's work has also been published in Taxation, Tax Adviser, Tolley's Practical Tax, Tax Journal and Simon's Weekly Tax Intelligence. Since January 1998, Mark has been a consultant in his own tax practice, Mark McLaughlin Associates, which provides tax consultancy and support services to professional firms. He publishes a regular 'Tax Update' e-Newsletter for clients and other professional firms. To receive future copies, contact Mark via his website. |
|||
|
Article Added Sunday, 02 November 2008 | 2598 Hits |
|||
















