fbpx

How Good a Guide is an AIM Listing to a Share's Open Market Value?

18th December 2023 By

Most investors would agree that the price at which shares are listed on an accredited investment exchange is as reliable a guide as any to their open market value. A tax dispute concerning a gift of shares to charity, however, showed that such an assumption may not always be correct.

A man received 190,000 shares in a recently formed company as a gift from a friend before gifting them on to a children’s charity. Based on the price attributed to the shares on AIM, he asserted that they were, on the date of the gift, worth 42.5 pence each, giving a total value for his holding of £80,750.

Claiming relief under Section 587B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, he sought to set that sum off against his Income Tax liability for the relevant year. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), however, took the view that the shares were, on the relevant date, worth less than a quarter of the sum claimed and reduced his tax credit accordingly.

Challenging that decision, the man asserted that the AIM listing was potent evidence which supported his assessment of the shares’ market value. There was no evidence of price manipulation and, as a private individual, he had relied on publicly available information to arrive at a correct valuation of the shares for tax purposes. The company was still listed on AIM and had apparently done well.

Ruling on the matter, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) acknowledged that the price at which a share is listed on AIM may be relevant to a valuation. However, there had only been a limited number of trades in the company’s shares prior to the gift. The price at which such modest volumes of shares had been traded could not, without more, be viewed as a reliable proxy for the open market value of those shares.

The FTT preferred expert evidence presented by HMRC as to the price that a hypothetical prudent investor, armed with relevant information, would realistically have paid for the shares on the relevant date. On that basis, the FTT found that the shares were at the time worth 9.42 pence each and that the man’s tax credit should thus be limited to £17,898.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...