MVL - my case

[Maslins]

The capital distribution from a liquidation of an investment company would not qualify for entrepreneur's relief in the first place as an investment company is not a trading company. So why would HMRC add the term "activity" to block shareholders claims from an investment company when there is already a concrete block in the entrepreneur's relief legislation for distributions from an investment company.

Another epic fail from Maslins regarding MVL/ER. I remember last year when you were spouting a few months gap doing a permie role was sufficient to claim ER. I wonder how many people you have got into trouble with that advice.

1st sentence of your post = correct.

Rest of post = wrong.

Transactions in securities anti avoidance legislation (both old and new) has nothing to do with whether a capital gain qualifies for entrepreneurs relief or not. Where TiS applies, the distributions wouldn't be capital gains at all, they'd be taxed as dividends.

Additional rate taxpayer liquidating an investment company would suffer 38.1% tax on dividends, 20% tax on capital gain not qualifying for entrepreneurs relief (and not property). THAT is why HMRC might seek to "block shareholders claims from an investment company".

[craigy1874]

Very nicely put him in his place maslins, well done

I actually agree totally with your advice and I do not think that a permie role would mean you are caught for ER as part of the two year rule.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

In practice I think it's got to be obvious that's not what HMRC want to achieve, as clearly it's better not only for the individual, but also UK Plc for that person to continue working in some capacity. It's a shame that whilst powers that be often talk about the spirit of the law, that seems to hold little weight in court.

I hear McDonalds are always looking for new employees...