Section 386 — Corporation Tax Act 2009: Overview of Chapter
Text of the provision Official document
Overview of Chapter 386 1 This Chapter contains special rules about the treatment of the loan relationships of insurance companies.
2 In particular, it—
a provides for special rules to apply for the purposes of the I - E rules in relation to an insurance company's non-trading deficits referable to BLAGAB instead of those in Chapter 16 (see sections 387 to 391),
and b excludes some loan relationships of corporate members of Lloyd's from this Part (see section 392), ... c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 For further special rules affecting insurance companies, see—
a section 298(3) (under which activities carried on by a company in the course of mutual insurance business which is not life assurance business ... are treated as not constituting a trade or part of a trade) and section 88 of FA 2012 (equivalent rule for activities carried on in the course of BLAGAB) , b Chapter 4 (continuity of treatment on transfers within groups or on reorganisations), and, in particular, sections 335(1) and (2), 336(4) and 337, c section 405 (certain non-UK residents with interest on 3½% War Loan 1952 Or After),
d sections 468 and 471 (connection between creditor and debtor companies to be ignored in some cases where creditor is insurance company carrying on BLAGAB),
e section 483(6) (treatment of deferred acquisition costs and provision for unearned premiums or for unexpired risks as a money debt for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 6 in the case of companies carrying on insurance business),
and f section 486(4) (no exchange gains or losses to arise for the purposes of that Chapter where relevant debts prevented from being deductible as ordinary BLAGAB management expenses ).
4 In this Chapter “ BLAGAB ” means basic life assurance and general annuity business.
Official source: legislation.gov.uk
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from UK courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →