This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our privacy notice.

‘Risk to capital’ condition met and company was carrying on a qualifying trade

By Mark McLaughlin, September 2022

The appellant company met the seed enterprise investment scheme (SEIS) relief ‘risk to capital’ condition, its co-production of a film did not fall foul of the ‘own qualifying business activity’ condition, and there were no disqualifying arrangements to preclude SEIS authorisation.

In 2016, a company (‘SCF’) was established to conduct initial work in the production of films. Production would be undertaken by special purpose vehicles (SPVs) established for each project or film, with SCF selling the rights to the films to the SPVs.  

 In January 2015, the appellant requested advance assurance that it was a qualifying company for the purposes of the seed enterprise investment scheme (SEIS), and that any shares to be allotted were qualifying shares. On 5 March 2015, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) granted advance assurance.

The appellant issued: (1) 1,666 ‘B’ shares to an individual (CG) on

Subscribe to the McLaughlin’s Tax Case Library to get instant access
to the Tax Case Library.
14 day free trial , 90 day money back guarantee
Subscribe

Related or similar articles

Discovery assessment was validly made and taxpayer’s case prepared using AI did not give grounds to allow an appeal
By Mark McLaughlin, July 2025
HMRC’s information notice to taxpayer must be amended to make it less extensive
By Mark McLaughlin, April 2025
Share transactions did not amount to a trading activity carried on commercially
By Mark McLaughlin, April 2023
Dividends credited to directors’ loan accounts were backdated
By Mark McLaughlin, March 2023
Taxpayers’ behaviour was not fraudulent/deliberate but was negligent/careless
By Mark McLaughlin, October 2020