RE: Amur special dividend31 Jan 2025 14:06
The argument for the Crown was based to a large extent on what was said in this House in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Reid's Trustees[1949] A.C.361. In that case a dividend in the form of cash was received from a South African company by a taxpayer in Scotland. It is clear from several of the speeches that this dividend was received as income. But its source was profit from appreciation of capital assets of the company.It was assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the law of South Africa was the same as the law of England: so the dividend would be received in South Africa as income. But the taxpayer maintained that it was not taxable income, founding on the fact that a similar dividend paid by a British company would not be subject to income tax. This was held to be irrelevant: the dividend was income from a foreign possession and was therefore within Case V.
The issue with AMC is that it does not have realised profits in its balance to pay the special dividend out of it only has accumulated losses and if you look at their year end accounts for 2024 you will see that special dividend was debited (charged) to the accumulated losses reserve account thereby increasing the cumulative realised losses.
If AMC has not realised profits to pay the dividend out of then it must be the case that the special dividend was funded via the Share Capital account although a counter argument would be that it is being funded out of the net proceeds of the Irosta subsidiary consideration.
AGE