ITA 2007 states
257DG(1) The control element of the requirement is that–
(a)the issuing company must not at any time in period A control (whether on its own or together with any person connected with it) any company which is not a qualifying subsidiary of the issuing company, and
Company A, which is controlled by a single shareholder, wishes to raise some investment through SEIS. The same shareholder that controls company A also controls a seperate Company B. Company A does not own any shares in Company B.
The fact that the same shareholder controls both companies does this mean that Company A falls foul of 257DG(1) above. In otherwords can it be argued that Company A could control Company B and therefore fails this test.
Thanks
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
You're right. It's not what it says in VCM34080, but it is what it says in s257HJ(3). I wasn't expecting that, I'll be honest :-/
So you're looking at s451(4) and attribution? Agreed. But is a shareholder in a company an associate of that company?
I don't believe that the OP is talking about attribution under CTA 2010, s 451(4).
I believe the OP is talking about the "together with" attribution in ITA 2007, s 257DG(1)(b).
That is to say X controls company B and X is connected to company A (by reason of controlling it). Therefore, whilst company A has no interest in company B, it is controlled by a person connected with company A. So, can it be said that company B is controlled by company A and X together.
IMO "together with" must be taken to mean that if company A does not have any interest of its own in company B, it is not necessary to add X's interest in company B to it.
Yes. See my reply below (timed before yours but appearing after it... I love Aweb's format).
My understanding was that if X alone controls A, then - although it's therefore true that X+Y control A (whoever or whatever Y is) - Y does not enter into the control equation.
That's different from what you have said... which (on current form) makes me think I am wrong.
Sorry, I somehow missed
What I am struggling with is whether the fact that Company A does not own any shares in Company B mean that company A can not exercise any control in its own right over company B. The legislation states "together with".
I've been addressing a different question.
"Together with" applies when each party contributes a measure of control. (If the interpretation that concerns you was right, you wouldn't need s451 etc.)