Share this content
6

ITEPA 2003 section 100A

Does the exemption extend to other benefits?

Didn't find your answer?

Section 100A of ITEPA 2003 provides for an exemption from the accommodation benefit in kind, provided that the relevant conditions are met. Does anyone know if the exemption would extend to other items, such as furniture etc? My instinct tells me no, but I cannot find anything definitive to that effect. I suppose that the answer is that you can't find something that doesn't exist, and that section 100A provides a specific exemption from a specific benefit. In absence of another exemption relating to other items, the benefit charge in resepct of those other items sticks? I just want to make sure that I haven't overlooked something.

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Vile Nortin Naipaan
12th Mar 2019 10:31

Why would there be such a corresponding exemption?

The purpose of the exemption in s 100A is to prevent a benefit in kind arising on UK residents who have to hold their holiday homes or similar through a company, because of the laws on property ownership by non-residents in the jurisdiction in which the property is situated (France, for example).

I am not aware of any jurisdiction that prevents non-residents from owning personal chattels that are situated in that jurisdiction.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Vile Nortin Naipaan:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
12th Mar 2019 10:55

Thanks.

I wasn't saying that there should be a corresponding exemption, and your analysis is aligned with my own.

I just wanted to be certain and I don't feel any shame in asking for a second opinion to support my own.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Vile Nortin Naipaan
12th Mar 2019 11:33

I wasn't berating you for asking the question. My "why would there be" underpinned my analysis. It is a specific exemption, introduced to counteract a specific issue that had been identified. As far as I recall, there was no corresponding issue in relation to furniture.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Montrose
13th Mar 2019 20:41

What evidence is there that the relevant body corporate owns the furniture-in practice the furniture will belong to the shareholders, who paid personally for it
QED

Thanks (0)
Replying to Montrose:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
13th Mar 2019 21:06

Quite simple, really. In this case, as is the norm in the country in question, the company purchased a fully furnished property.

QED indeed!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Montrose
14th Mar 2019 08:59

But did the company have a bank account? Even if the vendor sold a"package" who paid for it?. Are there any company accounts?

In the territory in which the property is located, is there a property acquisition tax equivalent to SDLT, and what figure is used for assessing that?
Does it include contents?

Thanks (0)
Share this content