Blog - 20/08/2018
Loss of EIS relief caused by subsidiary
Many people are already aware that by virtue of s.187 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (the ITA) for a company to qualify for EIS status all of its subsidiaries must be “qualifying subsidiaries”. A recent First-tier Tribunal case has determined that a company limited by guarantee is not a qualifying subsidiary.
In Hunters Property plc v. HMRC  UKFTT 0096 (TC), the Tribunal considered the effect of the inclusion of a guarantee company in the group of a company applying for EIS relief.
A company is a “subsidiary” as defined in s.1159 of the Companies Act 2006 of another company (its “holding company”) if that other company:
- holds a majority of the voting rights in it;
- is a member of it and has the right to appoint or remove a majority of its board of directors; or
- is a member of it and controls alone, or pursuant to an agreement with another person, a majority of voting rights in it,
or if it is a subsidiary of a company that itself is a subsidiary of that other company.
For a subsidiary to be “qualifying” s.191 ITA requires that all of the following conditions be satisfied:
- the subsidiary is a 51% Subsidiary of the relevant company;
- no person other than the relevant company, or another of its subsidiaries, has control of the subsidiary; and
- no arrangements are in existence by virtue of which either of the two conditions above would cease to be met.
A “51% Subsidiary” is defined by reference to s.989 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 which, crucially, provides that a company (A) is a subsidiary of another company (B) if more than 51% of B’s ordinary share capital is owned directly or indirectly by A.
The Tribunal determined that the guarantee company was a “subsidiary” of Hunters Property plc (Hunters), as a subsidiary of Hunters was its sole member and had the power to appoint and remove directors. However, because a guarantee company does not have any share capital, it was determined that the relevant subsidiary of Hunters was not a “qualifying subsidiary” for the purposes of s.191 ITA. As a result, EIS treatment was denied.
This case is an important reminder that the EIS rules are strictly interpreted. It is important to ensure full compliance with the rules where EIS treatment is desired. Attention should particularly be paid if there are unusual entities in the group. For example UK LLPs and US LLCs would seem to be subject to the same treatment as guarantee companies.
If you have any further questions or concerns regarding the above topic please contact any member of the Edwin Coe Corporate & Commercial team.
If you aren’t receiving our legal updates directly to your mailbox, please sign up now
Please note that this blog is provided for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content of this blog.
Edwin Coe LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership, registered in England & Wales (No.OC326366). The Firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of members of the LLP is available for inspection at our registered office address: 2 Stone Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, London, WC2A 3TH. “Partner” denotes a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant with the equivalent standing.