Before 29 October 2018 (budget day) it was fairly common knowledge that various conditions needed to be met for a year up to disposal if a shareholder was to qualify for Entrepreneurs’ Relief (ER). The main conditions were:
This allowed shareholders to benefit from ER when they commercially held much less than 5% of the company’s share capital. The point here is that nominal share capital can be fairly worthless. Take an extreme example whereby a class of shares is issued which only has voting rights and rights to the nominal share capital on an exit:
Clive owned 3% (or 30 £1 ordinary shares) of a company’s share capital and 3% of votes. The company is worth £50M and has share capital comprised of 1,000 £1 ordinary shares. Clive was then issued with 25 £1 B ordinary shares which have pro rata voting rights but only have capital rights to nominal share capital (ie £25). Suddenly Clive found himself with 5.37% (55/1025) of nominal share capital and 5.37% of voting rights and therefore would benefit from ER for a disposal after a year. If the company was then sold after a year (assuming a negligible base cost) Clive would make a gain of £1.5M and have a tax liability of £150,000 rather than £300,000 which would have applied without the availability of ER. Put simply a trivial investment of £25 saved £150,000 of tax!
Perhaps unsurprisingly this loophole was removed from 29 October 2018. There are now two additional conditions:
Furthermore from 6 April 2019 conditions will have to be met for two years up to the point of sale (rather than a year).
All this tinkering with ER rules seems fair enough to counteract the ‘mischief’ in the example above but we are worried that they may have a more widespread impact…
How many shareholders can say with certainty that they are ‘entitled’ to 5% of the company’s distributable profits? For simple single class share structures the answer here can be quite straightforward because generally a holder of over 5% of the shares would be entitled to 5% of the company’s distributable profits. What about a company with two 50% shareholders who respectively hold 50 £1 A shares and 50 £1 B shares where it would be common for the articles to allow differential dividends to be paid to the different share classes? This can mean that (at least in theory) over 95% of distributable profits could be paid to either the A or the B shareholder. It logically follows that neither shareholder can truly say that he has an entitlement to 5% of the company’s distributable profits and therefore no alphabet shareholder will be able to benefit from ER!
We are hoping that the above analysis will not be applied in practice, although our first look at the recently issued legislation suggests that it does stand. Hopefully some sense will prevail over the coming months but this can be a slow process. In the meantime shareholders should be reviewing company articles and considering the insertion of clauses which put the ER position beyond doubt. However, this approach will not help long-term shareholders who want to sell their companies within two years.
You can use this form to request us to give you a call or if you prefer just leave us a message. Please be sure to leave us a contact number or email address for you and we will get back to you as soon as we can.