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.

The ‘Indirect’ Close Company Loan Charge

Shared from Tax Insider: The ‘Indirect’ Close Company Loan Charge
By Peter Rayney, December 2018
Peter Rayney looks at the potential 32.5% tax charge that can arise on management buy-out deal structures.

We will probably be familiar with the close company loan to participator tax charge in CTA 2010, s 455. Broadly, where a loan is made to a shareholder – typically where an overdrawn director’s loan account arises – that has not been cleared or repaid within nine months of the company’s year-end, the company must pay a 32.5% tax charge on the amount that remains outstanding.

Scope of CTA 2010, s 459 
Perhaps less well-known is the supplementary provisions dealing with ‘indirect loans’ to shareholders (in CTA 2010, s 459). Broadly, this provision deems a loan to have been made to a participator (typically a shareholder) where:
  • under arrangements made by someone, 
  • a close company makes a loan that is not within the normal CTA 2010, s 455 tax charge; and
  • a person (other than the close company) makes a payment to a participator (or their associate), which is not subject to an income tax charge (CTA 2010, s 459(3)).
This legislation primarily aims to catch certain ‘back-to-back arrangements’ – such as where a close company deposits cash with (say) a bank on the understanding that the bank will make an advance or loan to a participator of that close company. These arrangements would firmly fall within this legislation. 

However, the wording of CTA 2010, s 459 is sufficiently wide to catch ‘financial assistance’ type loans made in connection with management buy-out (MBO) deals. This is best illustrated through a typical MBO case study.

Case study – Management buy-out
Miss Olu, the 100% shareholder of BM Six Ltd has agreed to sell ‘her’ company to a new company (Newco) under an MBO deal, following the formation of Newco by Alan and the company’s senior management team.

Under the MBO deal, Miss Olu will sell her 100% holding in BM Six Ltd for £6 million, funded by surplus cash remaining in the business (i.e. surplus to its normal working capital requirements) of some £2 million, commercial bank debt of £2 million, deferred consideration of £1.5 million, and shares in Newco (worth £0.5 million).

The corporate finance adviser has indicated that the £2 million ‘surplus’ cash should be passed to Miss Olu by way of a loan from BM Six Ltd to Newco, as shown below:


Under the above proposals, the loan made by BM Six Ltd to Newco is not within CTA 2010, s 455 since it is not to an individual participator (shareholder). However, under the MBO arrangements, the £2 million loan monies form part of the £4 million sale proceeds immediately payable to Miss Olu (the seller) in an income-tax-free form. Consequently, CTA 2010, s 459(2) would apply to treat the loan made to Newco as though it were a loan to a participator within CTA 2010, s 455. Thus, if it was not repaid within the relevant ‘nine-month’ window, a section 455 charge of £650,000 (i.e. 32.5% x £2 million) would arise. 

On the basis of the current deal structure, Miss Olu is a participator in Newco. However, even if she did not take shares in Newco as part of her sale consideration, she would be a participator by virtue of being a loan creditor (CTA 2010, s 454(2)(b)). 

HMRC continues to confirm that where the relevant conditions are satisfied, it will seek to apply the CTA 2010, s 459 provisions.

Using dividends to transfer cash to Newco
In practice, it is often possible to ‘plan out’ of the potential CTA 2010, s 459 CTA 2010 problem by arranging for the monies to be transferred to Newco via a dividend payment (assuming the ‘business’ has sufficient distributable reserves). 

The ‘tax-free’ dividend monies received by Newco are then used to discharge the purchase consideration payable to the sellers of Target. Since there is no loan to Newco, CTA 2010, s 459 cannot apply.

Practical Tip:
Where an upstream loan has already been used, a post-acquisition dividend could be used to repay the loan before the ‘nine-month’ trigger date for the 32.5% tax charge.
Peter Rayney looks at the potential 32.5% tax charge that can arise on management buy-out deal structures.

We will probably be familiar with the close company loan to participator tax charge in CTA 2010, s 455. Broadly, where a loan is made to a shareholder – typically where an overdrawn director’s loan account arises – that has not been cleared or repaid within nine months of the company’s year-end, the company must pay a 32.5% tax charge on the amount that remains outstanding.

Scope of CTA 2010, s 459 
Perhaps less well-known is the supplementary provisions dealing with ‘indirect loans’ to shareholders (in CTA 2010, s 459). Broadly, this provision deems a loan to have been made to a participator (typically a shareholder) where:
  • under arrangements made by someone, 
  • a close company makes a loan that is not within the normal CTA 2010, s 455
... Shared from Tax Insider: The ‘Indirect’ Close Company Loan Charge