We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oxford Technology Venture Capital Trust Plc | OXT | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 27.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 18/6/2014 18:56 by timbo003 See latest update from the Investors Chronicle which published online today, so presumably it will appear in the print edition on Friday: |
Posted at 28/5/2014 17:35 by timbo003 Some coverage in Investors Chronicle, worth a read |
Posted at 21/3/2014 16:01 by timbo003 Here is an extremely helpful guide (just published) on the implications of withdrawal of VCT status for private investors from the AIC |
Posted at 14/3/2014 22:49 by 127tolmers Like Timbo I have also written to Kathryn Robertson at HMRCDear Kathryn, I am a serial investor in both new and second hand VCTs as I have an interest in investing in and supporting small growing UK companies. I am writing to you today as a shareholder in both Oxford Technology VCT 1 (OXT) and Oxford Technology VCT 3 (OTT). As you will be aware, both recently had their VCT status revoked as a result of a technical breach of VCT rules. I purchased shares in OXT and OTT some time ago as I like to support UK based, fast growing technology companies, in which the Oxford Technology VCTs specialise. I bought my shares in the second hand market, so I have no personal exposure to loss of VCT relief or triggering of deferred CGT liability. Of course there will be future tax implications for me personally from the fund losing its VCT status. I understand that the VCT rule breach came about as the result of OXT and OTT taking up their allocation in the July 2013 share placing in Scancell plc. Subsequently, Scancell represented over 15% of the value of the fund, so the increase in investment was not permitted under prevailing VCT rules. I am quite sure that this breach was unintentional, as I was present during discussions at a Scancell investor meeting (1 October 2013), when a fellow shareholder alerted the Lucius Cary (the OXT and OTT Director and Manager) of a possible breach of the VCT rules after he had mentioned that OXT and OTT had participated in the July placing. He appeared genuinely surprised and shocked by this news. He even suggested that this shareholder ought to be on his board! The rule regarding the 15% maximum holding was presumably designed to ensure a wide spread of initial investments. OXT and OTT accordingly have invested in 20 or so companies and, as might be expected, some were more successful than others. However an unintended consequence of this rule is that it hinders, rather than helps investment in small growing SMEs. The rules governing VCTs are complex and have evolved over a number of years, but I suspect the rule concerning the 15% maximum was not originally intended to discourage continued investment support from VCTs, such as OXT and OTT, into promising, fast growing companies such as Scancell after some of their other earlier investments had failed. This is particularly relevant in the current funding environment, where pre revenue, R&D based SMEs, such as Scancell, find it extremely difficult to attract investment through more conventional routes. I do understand the necessity for rule compliance and that an inadvertent breach of the rules cannot be ignored, but I would hope that a first time, inadvertent technical breach could be more appropriately remedied. For example is it not possible to find a simple solution which would bring the VCT back into compliance by requiring the VCTs to sell the shares incorrectly acquired in the placing. Leaving aside the rules and complexity of VCT compliance, it does seem somewhat inappropriate to target punishment at individual, blameless OXT and OTT shareholders, who may have much to lose. Many of them, like me, will have been motivated to invest in OXT and OTT because they wished to support UK based, technology start-up companies and many would probably not have invested, if it were not for the VCT tax breaks to compensate for the high risk nature of the investment. As shareholders we rely on the Board and Manager's statements in their annual report; Internal control The directors are responsible for the company's system of internal control. The Board has adopted an internal operating and strategy document for the company. This includes procedures for the selection and approval of investments, the functions of the Investment Manager and exit and dividend strategies. Day to day operations are delegated under agreements with the Investment Manager who has established clearly defined policies and standards. These include procedures for the monitoring and safeguarding of the company's investments and regular reconciliation of investment holdings. This system of internal control, which includes procedures such as physical controls, segregation of duties, authorisation limits and comprehensive financial reporting to the Board, is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance against material misstatement or loss. The Board has considered the need for an internal audit function but has decided that the size of the company does not justify it at present. However, it will keep the decision under annual review. The Board has reviewed, with its Investment Manager, the operation and effectiveness of the company's system of internal control for the financial period and the period up to the date of approval of the financial statements. And later: Deferred Tax Deferred tax is not provided on capital gains and losses arising on the revaluation or disposal of investments because the company meets (and intends to continue for the forseeable future to meet) the conditions for approval as a Venture Capital Trust. The HMRC has approved the company as a Venture Capital Trust for the purpose of Section 247 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 2007. The approval was given in the financial period ended 28 February 1998 and the company has subsequently directed its affairs so as to enable it to continue to be so approved. If punitive action does need to be taken, would it not be more appropriate to impose a fine on the Board and Managers and to restore VCT status to both OXT and OTT. The publicity that this HMRC action has generated in the VCT world will undoubtedly strengthen the internal control processes in all VCTs and I am sure that the Oxford Boards will never let this happen again. I understand that there is now a one month window for the VCTs to lodge their appeals and I would be grateful if you could ensure this correspondence is taken into consideration during the appeal processes and forward it on to all those concerned with it in HMRC. I look forward to your reply. Kind regards, |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
