Section 430 — Corporation Tax Act 2010: “Associated company”
Text of the provision Official document
“Associated company” 430 1 This section gives the meaning of “ associated company ” for the purposes of this Chapter.
2 A company is an “associated company” of another company on any day if, at the start of that day—
a one of the two has control of the other, or b both are under the control of the same person or persons.
3 Section 450 (meaning of “ control ” for the purposes of Part 10 (close companies)) applies for the purposes of subsection (2).
4 Subsections (5) and (6) apply if, at the start of any day, a company (“the consortium company”)—
a is owned by a consortium, or b is a qualifying 75% subsidiary of a company owned by a consortium.
5 If there is any qualifying change in the consortium company's interest in a business on that day, references to an associated company of the consortium company on that day include—
a any member of the consortium at the start of that day, and b any company which is an associated company of any such member on that day.
6 If there is any qualifying change of ownership in relation to the consortium company on that day, but there is no qualifying change in its interest in a business on that day, references to an associated company of the consortium company on that day include—
a any relevant member of the consortium on that day, and b any company which is an associated company of any relevant member of the consortium on that day.
7 For the purposes of subsection (6) a member of the consortium is a “relevant” member on the day on which the qualifying change of ownership occurs if—
a it is a member of the consortium at the start of the day, and b the change is a relevant change within section 394(2), (6) or (8) (consortium relationships) in relation to which the member is regarded as “ E ” for the purposes of section 394.
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 →