Please find below a piece from Cathy Corns posted on our sister blog SME Plus Blog.

HMRC has recently confirmed one very important point on assets that have been owned for a number of years. Such assets will have accrued a substantial amount of indexation relief (over 100% to date on assets held on 31 March 1982). Where an individual owns such assets on 5 April 2008 the indexation relief is irretrievably lost.

However HMRC have now confirmed (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/faqs-cgt-reform.htm) that where an asset is transferred to a spouse or civil partner on a no-gain no-loss transfer the indexation relief is captured as part of the new owner’s base cost for tax purposes. This is an important planning possibility.

Regrettably though life in tax is never 100% straightforward – if the original owner would qualify for the new entrepreneurs relief and the new owner would not then the value of the historic indexation has to be compared with the value of the new relief before any transfer is made.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Below is a blog written my colleague and Mercer & Hole partner Cathy Corns on SME Plus blog, in relation to the government's retreat on key tax reforms.

According to The Times the Government are looking to mitigate the changes proposed in the Pre Budget Statement three weeks ago. Apparently the plan is to introduce a form of retirement relief of £100,000, aimed to assist small businessmen who are selling up and retiring. As of the time this was posted the HMRC website had no details on this and so we do not know if it is accurate and, if so what is meant by small or retiring or what tests have to be met to qualify.

Any mitigation of the tax is welcome and I will be in touch again when more details are available.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As mentioned on my colleagues SME plus blog , The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, will be presenting his 2007 Pre-Budget Report and the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review on the afternoon of Tuesday 9th October.

Cathy Corns will post details of important announcements here shortly after the end of his speech.

Subscribe today to receive regular email updates on the latest business news and views from the partners of Mercer & Hole.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last month the American version of HM Revenue and Customs, the IRS published a radical “technical advice memorandum” (TAM) which set out its view that US beneficiaries of offshore (i.e. non US) trust / holding company are taxable on a corporate reorganisation within the structure under the Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC) rules.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

HMRC have tightened up their interpretation of rules which can enable employers to pay for taxis for late working employees without incurring a tax liability.

If an employee works later than usual at night it is not uncommon for an employer to pay for a taxi home. Is this a taxable benefit? In general – Yes – but there is an exemption in certain circumstance provided by the tax legislation (section 248 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003).

The circumstances are:

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You may recall that earlier this week Cathy Corns, Corporate Tax Partner at Mercer & Hole wrote an article on the Jones v Garnett case for her SME Blog.  Following on from this piece Cathy has submitted an additional blog on the topical "Arctic Systems Ltd" case.

The House of Lords issued their judgement in the case of Jones v Garnett (also known as the “Arctic Systems Ltd” case) on 25 July 2007. To much rejoicing the case was decided in favour of Mr and Mrs Jones. However, the Revenue is a bad loser.

On 26 July a written Ministerial statement was issued by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, announcing the intention to change the law.

Using the standard “the Government is committed to maintaining fairness in the tax system” statement the Government now believes it needs to do something to “ensure that there is greater clarity in the law regarding its position on the tax treatment of income splitting”. Actually, in my opinion, the law is now clear – it may not say what the Revenue wants it to, but that is unfortunate (for them) rather than unclear.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Cathy Corns, Corporate Tax Partner at Mercer & Hole wrote this article for her SME Blog earlier today.

This all seems to have been going on for so long you may need reminding of what all the fuss is about; so 

 - Mr and Mrs Jones ran a small IT company of which Mr Jones was the sole director. They each owned one share in the company took a small salary and extracted the majority of their required funds by way of dividend. These, of course, were paid in line with the shareholdings, on a 50:50 basis.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Investment trust companies (ITCs) are celebrating their victory at the European Court of Justice on 28 June when it was ruled that the term “special investment funds” can include closed-ended investment funds, such as ITCs. As a consequence they should benefit from the same exemption from VAT for fees paid for management services, as presently enjoyed by unit trusts and OEICs..

The case was brought by JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc and The Association of Investment Companies. The Association say investment trusts have been unfairly charged VAT on management expenses since 1990

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

There have been several recent changes to investments qualifying under Enterprise Investment Schemes (EIS), Corporate Venture Schemes (CVS) and Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs).  A number of our clients are involved in raising finance under these schemes.

The 2007 Finance Bill has imposed additional qualification limits.  The main changes are (although not confined to ) :

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks