by Steve Livingston on January 24, 2012
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The Patent Box lands in the UK on 1 April 2013 as part of the government’s bid to make the UK a more attractive and globally competitive place to do business.
I won’t dish out the detail of the patent box right now suffice to say that it will provide a lower rate of UK corporation tax for patent income (10%). The main rate of corporation tax is currently 26% and will be 24% at the time of the introduction of this new relief.
The patent box is not new – other countries have successfully piloted similar schemes (some EU countries with more attractive patent box rates than our proposed rate) and now the US is taking a serious look.
We already have the R&D tax credit in the UK to reward companies engaged in pushing the envelope of knowledge in the areas of science and technology although some 12 years post intro there are still many companies that are struggling to get to grips with this increasingly attractive tax incentive and many who have yet to make a claim (much to my frustration!).
HMRC recently held a meeting outlining the new patent box relief (slides here). I am not the only one left thinking that once companies have gone to the hassle of calculating the profits attributable to this lower rate, there may not be much eligible for the special 10% tax rate!
This is a good initiative but yet again the implementation of this tax incentive leaves a headache for companies and their advisors. What are your thoughts on what you’ve seen so far?
by Steve Livingston on November 22, 2011
A key requirement of EIS (Enterprise Investment Scheme) relief is that the funds invested are ‘employed’ within the investee business within the requisite time. The current requirement is that 100% of the funds must be invested within 2 years in the qualifying trade.
But how can a company ensure that it can demonstrate that it has fulfilled this requirement?
It is commonly advised that companies maintain a separate bank account for the EIS funds received. This way the company can maintain a record of both the timing and nature of the expenditure to which the EIS funds have been employed. There has never been a problem with EIS funds being used for working capital requirements – in fact, advisers have often recommended that funds be utilised for working capital requirements in priority to other funds if there was a risk that the funds might not otherwise be invested in time – however, a recent court case has added a layer of complexity to this commonly accepted advice.
The recent Skye Inns case was decided against the taxpayer on the grounds that a proportion of the funds was not invested within the required time limit. This was despite the fact that a separate bank account was maintained. The company was faced with a difficult decision in that a particular investment fell through shortly before the time limit for investment of the EIS funds was set to expire. The company therefore tried to argue that the funds had (largely) been utilised in servicing working capital demands instead. The appeal court decided, however, that the ongoing trading income of the investee business should be considered for servicing working capital in priority to any EIS funds. On this basis, HM Revenue & Customs won the appeal and the EIS relief was denied for the taxpayer.
It is key therefore that EIS subscription monies are earmarked in the relevant period for a specific current or future trading requirement rather than simply dipping into the EIS account, as necessary, and relying on a first in / first out (FIFO) basis to favour EIS funds over subsequent trading income. As ever, the paper trail will be key in ensuring that relief is not denied.
