Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mark Hoban (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 3 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance (No 2) Bill.


Finance (No. 2) Bill

I thank the Minister for the effectiveness of his reply. I shall comment first on amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8. He makes a persuasive case for the reduction in the asset limits. I am grateful, as I am sure is the VCT industry, for his reassurances that the situation will be kept under review and action taken where necessary. The House would welcome regular updates on the monitoring of the nature of the investments undertaken by VCTs working under the new asset limits. On amendment No. 9 on accounting practices and the differential treatment that there can be under UK and international standards for the capitalisation of development—the right hon. Gentleman was right to distinguish between research and development—the issue is not so much that one group of businesses would get a double benefit for R and D, as that a business that applied international financial reporting standards could go over the gross asset test, whereas the same business using generally accepted UK accounting practice could fall below the gross asset test. Given the difference in accounting practice for the treatment of capitalised development costs under the UK and international financial reporting standards, a company could benefit from VCT investment while another does not. I hope that the Financial Secretary will reflect on that, as we consider unlisted companies’ take-up of international financial reporting standards, and whether that causes some businesses to lose out on VCT relief because they adopt one method of accounting rather than another. On amendment No. 13, I also welcome the Financial Secretary’s reassurance on inadvertent breaches of the 70 per cent. rule and his comments on the associated guidance that HMRC will issue. Although his remarks are absolutely right about the importance of such money being invested—that is what investors in VCTs would seek—it is important that the guidance on inadvertent breaches should consider situations where investments might well be realised and the trust might breach the 70 per cent. rule, pending a further investment or the return of cash to its shareholders.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
445 c1012 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Companies Assets Climate change Cars Concessions Finance Investment Income tax Excise duties Inheritance tax Property Transport Small businesses Shares Tax allowances Taxation Research Rural areas Real estate investment trusts Enterprise investment scheme Venture capital trusts
Legislation
Finance (No. 2) Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk