Section 100A — Finance Act 2008: Homes outside UK owned through company etc
Text of the provision Official document
Homes outside UK owned through company etc 100A 1 This Chapter does not apply to living accommodation outside the United Kingdom provided by a company for a director or other officer of the company (“D”) or a member of D's family or household if—
a the company is wholly owned by D or D and other individuals (and no interest in the company is partnership property),
and b the company has been the holding company of the property at all times after the relevant time.
2 The company is “the holding company of the property” when—
a it owns a relevant interest in the property, b its main or only asset is that interest, and c the only activities undertaken by it are ones that are incidental to its ownership of that interest.
3 The company is also “the holding company of the property” when—
a a company (“the subsidiary”) which is wholly owned by the company meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2),
b the company's main or only asset is its interest in the subsidiary, and c the only activities undertaken by the company are ones that are incidental to its ownership of that interest. 4 “ Relevant interest in the property ” means an interest under the law of any territory that confers (or would but for any inferior interest confer) a right to exclusive possession of the property at all times or at certain times. 5 “The relevant time” is the time the company first owned a relevant interest in the property; but this is subject to subsection (6).
6 If—
a none of D's interest in the company was acquired directly or indirectly from a person connected with D, and b the company owned a relevant interest in the property at the time D first acquired an interest in the company, “the relevant time” is the time D first acquired such an interest.
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 →