The Fizz! Blog

Is there a cap on holding investments through your company?

Company owners are fairly frequently under the impression that there’s some cap on the proportion of their company’s assets that can be held in investments, as opposed to cash.  This isn’t the case, although we know why the misapprehension exists.

It’s to do with Business Asset Disposal Relief (the relief previously known as Entrepreneurs’ Relief).  When originally introduced, Entrepreneurs’ Relief was fairly exciting.  It could reduce the tax you paid when you sold (or liquidated) your company from 40% to 10%!  At one point, that could apply to profits of up to £10m - in theory someone could save £3m tax if they qualified for the relief.

There were some conditions.  One was that the company had to be wholly or mainly a trading company; non-trading activities couldn’t be substantial.  One such activity is investment.  HMRC ended up issuing the guideline that they might consider 20% as a proxy for substantial.  But was that 20% of income?  20% of assets?  20% of management time being spent on investments?  They were non-committal.  There were various verdicts in tax tribunals over the years that clarified things a bit - generally suggesting that you were probably OK to have quite a lot of company funds invested as long as you weren’t very actively managing them - but if someone wanted complete certainty on the relief they’d generally tread pretty carefully if they were hoping for savings at the upper end of the scale.

Things are very different now.  The top rate of Capital Gains Tax on a company sale or liquidation isn’t 40%, it’s 20%.  And you can’t claim the relief on £10m of income, only £1m at most.  Back in the day you could theoretically save £3m.  Now the maximum benefit is £100,000.  The maximum benefit of the relief is only 3.33% of what it once was!  On top of that, the majority of company owners will probably not arrive at a point where the relief needs to be claimed anyway - and who knows if the relief will even exist at a future point when you come to sell or liquidate.

So, it’s true that for some company owners there was a strong incentive to err on the side of caution with investing funds, in case the effort to generate a bit more profit in the short term meant the loss of a massive tax benefit in the medium to long term.  But it seems to have morphed into a generally held belief that there’s an absolute cap on what a company *can* invest, which isn’t true at all.  Whether you *should* invest company funds is another matter!  But generally perceptions of some big tax disincentive are misplaced.

www.fizzhq.com

The OnlyFans creator tax case actually shows that part of our tax system *is* fit for the 21st century

We were listening recently to a podcast discussing, amongst other things, the tax relief claimed by an OnlyFans creator on costs of cosmetic surgery.  The assertion was made that it’s an example of our tax system not being fit for the 21st century - those who drafted the legislation couldn't possibly have even imagined some of our modern-day sources of income, and it’s in need of overhaul.

Actually, the system of figuring out if costs are tax-deductible is beautifully designed for new and innovative businesses, because it’s principles-based rather than rules-based.  The central principle has always been - “is the cost incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade?”.  That trade could be anything - it could be the trade of a blacksmith, but it could be the trade of a fitness influencer.  From time to time there are grey areas, in which case it may go to a tax tribunal (a “tax court”, basically), and there’ll be a verdict that will either be binding or persuasive in similar situations in the future.  Or, in a grey area, a taxpayer and their advisers might just take a view, understanding that HMRC might have a different one if they looked at it (“would you be able to look a tax inspector in the eye and defend your treatment?” is often a good benchmark).  From time to time a government may actually impose rules if they want to encourage or discourage particular behaviours, but in general deductibility is driven by that first principle, which can be applied to absolutely any business.

There are definitely areas where the modern tax system has not kept up!  20th century legislation and international tax treaties were created for a world where global mobility was generally imagined to be fairly rare - nowadays migration and digital nomads are perfectly normal.  Arguably the treatment of cryptocurrencies (in the UK at least) is based on long-used principles, but does seem counterintuitive to many minds.  And our National Insurance system was designed for an era where most people were in salaried work, with both them and their employer paying into the system.  The subsequent proliferation of freelancers and personal service companies has broken that model.  But the framework for figuring out whether a cost is tax-deductible or not is elegant and foolproof!

www.fizzhq.com