Qualifying asset holding companies

The qualifying asset holding company (QAHC) regime is an elective tax-privileged regime available to certain holding companies (referred to as ‘asset holding companies’ or ‘AHCs’) that are used in collective and institutional investment structures to hold investment assets. The main focus of the regime is on alternative fund structures, which are typically closed-ended, non-retail funds which hold assets across a range of private market investment strategies—chiefly credit, private equity and real estate investments.

The QAHC regime was introduced on 1 April 2022 to encourage funds to base their AHCs in the UK where that otherwise makes sense (eg where the investment manager is based in the UK). Traditionally, despite a high concentration of deal professionals and asset management expertise in the UK, Luxembourg has been the preferred location for holding companies, due to its broad treaty network and framework of tax reliefs. Ireland has also offered an attractive framework. Exploring ways to address some of the tax-related barriers to establishing AHCs in the UK formed part of the wider review of the UK funds regime, launched at Spring Budget 2020, to consider tax and regulatory

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Tax News

FTT holds that sales of occupation income provisions applied to capital sum received by the taxpayer (Rupert Grint v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Rupert Grint v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found that the sales of occupation income anti-avoidance rules applied to a capital sum received by the taxpayer on the incorporation of his business. The anti-avoidance provisions were engaged as, although there were commercial reasons for the incorporation, one of the main objects of the arrangements was the avoidance or a reduction in income tax. The FTT also held that the closure notice was validly issued despite referring to the wrong legislative provision.

FTT holds discrimination settlement payment not taxable (L v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In L v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the part of a settlement payment which related to a discrimination claim fell outside the scope of income tax. This was on the basis that the payment was not ‘from employment’; instead it was made because the discrimination had deprived the former employee of the opportunity to perform her full role, causing financial loss.

FTT allows taxpayer’s R&D appeal (Stage One Creative Services Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Stage One Creative Services Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that it was entitled to research and development (R&D) relief under the pre-1 April 2024 regime for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

UT considers taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity and third party disclosure request (HMRC v The Taxpayer and Others)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected a taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity, following the taxpayer's decision to withdraw their substantive appeal with the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The UT further granted a third party limited access to the FTT’s previous case management decision. The UT’s decision emphasises the importance placed on open justice and highlights the court and tribunals’ reluctance to permit anonymity in litigation. Written by Helen McGhee, Partner, and Megan Durnford, Associate, at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP.