Proceeding contribution from John Healey (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 June 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
I do not want to return to clause 11, which was being discussed when the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I do not know whether he will find my answer satisfactory. The principal purpose of clause 14 and schedule 8 is to anticipate the development of new avoidance arrangements. This is the answer to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). By the scored amount in the current year for the revenue gain of the whole schedule, we are talking of only £5 million. Knowing what professional advisers are beginning to advise their clients, the point is to anticipate potential avoidance arrangements. Therefore, it is impossible to give the precise answer that hon. Members might wish for. The loan relationship connected party rules have included exemptions to protect venture capital investment in company start-ups and in early stage expansion. The changes made in the Finance Act 2004 clarified how the exemption applied in the case of certain sorts of foreign venture capital providers but did not otherwise affect the scope of the exemption. However, it has become clear that the exemption can be used not only for venture capital investments in start-ups and in growth companies but also to facilitate private equity investment in management buy-outs of large, long-established and profitable companies, and not only the ailing companies that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was concerned about. Amendments Nos. 20 and 27 would therefore undo the very purpose of the changes that we are introducing. They would mean that the exemption was not targeted on the growth companies and the start-ups for which it is intended. The benefits of the venture capital exemption would continue to be available for all private equity deals, management buy-outs and mature low-risk businesses with a steady and well established cash flow, and would certainly be less risky than the growth businesses that we want to encourage. The amendments would also allow the other avoidance opportunities that are closed down by paragraphs (2) and (3). I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his amendments.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 435 c103-4
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disclosure of information Admissions Charities Companies Corporation tax Charitable donations Finance EU law Investment Exemptions Interest payments Gift aid Ownership Museums and galleries Property Loans Open ended investment companies Small businesses Tax avoidance Taxation Transfer pricing Financial Ombudsman Service National Savings and Investments Collective investment schemes
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-16 21:55:11 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251900
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251900
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_251900