Skip to content
Solved
SearchBrowse
Sign in

Contents

Official guidance
Oil Taxation Manual

OT22000 · Interest and Financing - contents

  • OT22001 · Interest and Financing - Introduction
  • OT22002 · Interest and Financing: Transactions across the Ring Fence
  • OT22005 · Interest and Financing: Summary of the Statutory Provisions
  • OT22006 · Interest and Financing: Qualifying Loans
  • OT22009 · Interest and Financing: Replacement and Rescheduled Borrowing
  • OT22012 · Interest and Financing: Excluded Loan Relationship debits and credits
  • OT22013 · Interest and Financing: Charges paid to associates
  • OT22014 · Interest and Financing: Charges which were not allowed against Ring Fence profits
  • OT22020 · Interest and Financing: Sale and leaseback finance charges
  • OT22030 · Interest and Financing: The Debt Cap
  1. Interest and Financing - contents
  2. Interest and Financing: Transactions across the Ring Fence

OT22002 | Interest and Financing: Transactions across the Ring Fence

From HM Revenue & Customs · Oil Taxation Manual

TIOPA10\S205

TIOPA10\S205 makes it clear that the arm’s length standard must apply to all cross-ring fence transactions even when both the parties are UK resident. Furthermore the arm’s length standard applies where the cross-ring fence transaction occurs within a single company as well as where it occurs between separate companies.

This means that where a company’s borrowings finance a mixture of ring fence and non-ring fence assets, the latter should be regarded as if they belonged to a separate business when it comes to considering any restriction to arm’s length terms of the interest deductible against ring fence profits.

Example

LiabilitesAssets
Borrowings claimed as RF500Ring fence assets400
Share capital500Non-ring fence assets (e.g loans and investments)600
Total10001000

Considered as a whole, the above company is not thinly capitalised. However, when the ring fence assets are treated as belonging to a separate business, then that business is entirely financed by debt, and the equity is actually negative.

The application of an arm’s length standard to the separate ring fence business would require the ring fence assets to be funded partly by equity. Accordingly, so far as the claimed ring fence debt exceeds what the company could or would have borrowed on arm’s length terms if it had held only its ring fence assets, the interest should be disallowed against ring fence profits.

The legislation provides a clear remedy against the problems of excessive and unnecessary borrowing and will be considered where the gearing is inappropriate and there are concerns about thin capitalisation.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms