Share this content

Entrepreneurs’ relief: Mem and arts must make it personal

The tax tribunal refused to make up for deficiencies in a company’s memorandum and articles of association. The rights attached to the taxpayer’s shares didn’t meet the ER conditions and relief was denied.

16th Oct 2020
Share this content
Business man signing a document
istock_contract_scyther5

The appeal of Guy Holland-Bosworth (TC07811) against HMRC’s refusal of entrepreneurs’ relief was as doomed as Richard of York giving battle in vain. The taxpayer’s shares did not carry the necessary rights and the tribunal Judge effortlessly cut to pieces the arguments for a purposive approach based on the parties’ alleged intentions.

This was no long drawn-out courtroom drama: in a judgment welcome for its brevity and clarity Judge Julian Ghosh QC dropped his spoiler into the second paragraph thus;

“The issue is whether, when the Appellant disposed of 50 "B" Ordinary Shares (“the B Shares”) [he] was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief in respect of the capital . . . .  The short answer is "no".”

Personal company requirements

The definition of a personal company for ER (renamed business asset disposal relief) purposes is clearly set out in TCGA 1992 s 169S(3).

Register for free to continue reading

It’s 100% free and provides unlimited access to the latest accounting news, advice and insight every day. As well as access to this exclusive article, you can:

View all AccountingWEB content
Comment on articles
Watch our digital shows and more

Access content now

Already have an account?

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Psycho
By Wilson Philips
17th Oct 2020 20:48

A fairly predictable outcome. Nevertheless, probably - to most members here - a decision that is far more interesting and useful than many of the cases touted here as “interesting”

Thanks (6)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
19th Oct 2020 08:58

Well, my last mentioned case that you & others here found so uninteresting was featured in both Tax Journal & Taxation Magazine and an ex-judge here found it very interesting, so your above comment says a lot more about you & others here (and your tax knowledge or lack thereof) than me does it not?

As for the above ER case, what is so new & novel & interesting about it? Nothing in my view and it's entirely unsurprising - which is why JGQC gave it short shrift as such a trite point (although pointing out the obvious is of course useful to yourself & others here I suppose).

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Rgab1947
19th Oct 2020 10:15

miaow

Thanks (2)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
19th Oct 2020 10:32

As someone around here once said

it rather suggests that I'm right and you're wrong if insults is all you have to argue with

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Gartman
21st Oct 2020 05:32

The tax tribunal refused to make up for deficiencies in a company's memorandum and articles of association. The rights attached to the taxpayer's shares didn't meet the ER conditions and relief was denied.

Thanks (0)