Appointment of receivers in respect of a group entity takes “control” of that entity outside the group for tax purposes, but does this decision have more far reaching consequences?

The First Tier of the Tax Tribunal heard appeals against closure notices issued by HMRC denying claims for group relief by a group of companies, including a company over whose assets a fixed charge receiver (FCR) had been appointed (the Borrower).

On 17 June 2016, the First-tier Tribunal (in Farnborough Airport Properties Ltd v HMRC²) held that the appointment of a receiver over a (would-be surrendering) group company meant that “arrangements” were in place for the company to no longer be under the same “control” as would-be claimant group companies.

The Facts

A owned two properties, one of which had been divided into two separately rateable properties for council tax purposes. R presented a bankruptcy petition against A based on a purported debt of £14,097.59 owed by A in respect of unpaid council tax for which it had obtained liability orders from the Magistrates Court.

On 24 March, HMRC published a summary of responses to the December consultation on Company Distributions, together with details of the Government's position on the issues raised. The December consultation was covered in my 3 February blog.

Today is the closing date for responses to a Government consultation on the tax treatment of company distributions.  You can read the consultation document here.

The direction of travel, per the consultation, is clear.  Anyone thinking of liquidating their company should consider these new rules carefully.

Finance Bill 2016 includes provisions designed to prevent taxpayers converting profits generated in a company into a capital receipt in the hands of the shareholder(s). Taxpayers may want to consider winding-up their companies or making substantial dividend distributions ahead of 6 April 2016 as a result of these measures and the changes to the taxation of dividends.

Broadly, the intention is that a capital distribution made in the winding-up of a company will be taxed as income if:

The Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) can provide very significant tax relief for investors in unlisted companies but a recent case in the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) shows how strictly the rules of the Scheme are interpreted.

One of the many conditions of EIS relief is that the shares issued to the investor must not have any preferential right to a company’s assets on a winding up. The requirement is included so that an investor cannot obtain the tax advantages of EIS relief while being shielded from the economic risk of the investment.

The facts

This Court of Appeal decision in (1)TopBrandsLtd(2) LemioneServicesLtdv (1) Gagen Dulari Sharma (2) Barry John Ward (as former liquidators of Mama Milla Ltd) (2015) is noteworthy as it underlines that the “illegality defence” is still in a state of flux and in need of clarification by the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal has refused to allow a liquidator of a company that was the vehicle for a VAT fraud to rely on the defence of illegality in defending a claim for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986: Top Brands Ltd and others v Sharma (as former liquidator of Mama Milla Ltd) [2015] EWCA Civ 1140.

In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC^[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.

Background