Chapter 01
The situation.
A UK-headquartered music technology company operating across the UK, Spain and the US approached us to review its international tax structure ahead of expansion, fundraising, and potential M&A discussions. The business operated a hybrid cross-border structure involving UK entities, US shareholders, and a foreign partnership arrangement. The group had also recently completed an acquisition, adding further operational and tax complexity.
The original structure had grown organically. The next round wouldn't allow that.
The founders wanted clarity on whether the current structure remained tax-efficient as the company scaled, how accumulated losses could be preserved and utilised, whether introducing a UK or EU would improve investor readiness, how share options would be affected by restructuring, and the implications of future US expansion and investor participation — including potential exposure to and rules.
These weren't isolated technical questions. They were a single strategic question about whether the company could survive its own success without first cleaning up its structure.
· · ·
Continue to Chapter 02 — The risk ↓Chapter 02
The risk.
The business had reached the point where operational growth was beginning to outpace the original legal and tax structure. Several interconnected risks emerged.
UK and US tax misalignment
The hybrid structure involving UK trading entities and US shareholders participating through a foreign partnership arrangement created uncertainty around profit allocations, cross-border taxation, treatment of future profits, and potential IRS scrutiny if operational control changed. A key concern was how future UK profits would flow through to US shareholders, particularly where partners had zero tax basis or negative capital accounts.
Future exposure to anti-deferral regimes
While Subpart F and GILTI rules generally apply to Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFCs), there was a possibility that future restructuring or changes in investor participation could alter the US tax position. The founders needed clarity on whether the current partnership structure remained outside these rules, what would happen if the group later incorporated, and whether future US investors could unintentionally create adverse tax consequences.
Preserving £11M+ of tax losses
The group had accumulated significant carried-forward losses. The challenge was ensuring these losses remained available after any restructuring, while still enabling future flexibility for group relief, investment rounds, share reorganisations, and international expansion.
EMI share option scheme risk
The company operated an EMI option scheme designed to incentivise key employees. However, introducing a non-UK parent company could potentially disqualify the EMI structure if not handled correctly. The founders needed to understand whether a UK HoldCo or EU HoldCo would preserve EMI qualification, whether existing option holders could maintain tax benefits, and how to structure a share-for-share exchange without triggering unintended tax consequences.
Investor and exit readiness
The existing structure had evolved organically. As the company prepared for institutional investment and possible exit scenarios, the founders wanted to ensure the structure was legible to investors, scalable internationally, efficient for future acquisitions, suitable for cross-border operations, and capable of supporting future M&A activity.
· · ·
Continue to Chapter 03 — The recommendation ↓Chapter 03
The recommendation.
We conducted a strategic tax structure review focused on scalability, investor readiness, and cross-border efficiency. The review assessed existing UK and US tax exposures, HoldCo implementation options, future loss utilisation, EMI preservation strategies, cross-border shareholder implications, and future M&A readiness.
The right HoldCo isn't the one with the lowest headline rate. It's the one investors recognise.
1. Introduce a UK HoldCo structure
We advised that a UK HoldCo structure would likely provide the best balance between investor familiarity, EMI preservation, UK tax efficiency, future group relief opportunities, and cross-border simplicity. A UK HoldCo could also improve future acquisition flexibility and create a cleaner structure for institutional investors.
Importantly, this could potentially be achieved through a tax-neutral share-for-share exchange under — meaning the restructure itself wouldn't trigger a tax event for shareholders.
2. Preserve EMI through HMRC clearance
We recommended that any restructuring involving share exchanges or a new parent company should be supported by advance HMRC clearance. This was critical to preserve EMI tax advantages, avoid resetting qualifying holding periods, prevent disqualification of existing options, and maintain employee incentive alignment.
3. Protect existing trading losses
We advised that the company's carried-forward losses should generally remain available provided the underlying trade continued, no disqualifying change of ownership occurred, and restructuring was implemented carefully under UK tax rules. We also clarified that post-April 2017 UK losses provide greater flexibility because they can offset broader total taxable profits, not only trading income.
4. Maintain caution around US tax exposure
Although the current foreign partnership structure appeared broadly outside traditional Subpart F and GILTI rules, we recommended maintaining a conservative approach: monitoring future ownership changes, reviewing investor participation carefully, assessing future incorporation decisions, and undertaking US tax reviews before major restructuring.
· · ·
Continue to Chapter 04 — The outcome ↓Chapter 04
The outcome.
The founders gained a significantly clearer understanding of the risks embedded within the current hybrid structure, the practical realities of introducing a HoldCo, how to preserve EMI benefits during restructuring, the limitations and opportunities surrounding carried-forward losses, the tax implications of future US expansion, and the structural expectations of future investors and acquirers.
Most importantly, the business had a strategic roadmap for restructuring before growth, fundraising, or exit activity accelerated complexity further. The engagement transformed what initially appeared to be isolated tax questions into a broader strategic discussion around scalability, governance, and international growth readiness.
From this client
"Stephen helped us untangle a highly complex UK and US tax structure during a critical stage of growth. His advice gave us clarity on investor readiness, EMI preservation, loss utilisation, and future restructuring options. More importantly, he translated deeply technical cross-border tax issues into practical strategic decisions the leadership team could confidently act on."
Founder & CEO, UK Music Technology Company
· · ·
Continue to Chapter 05 — Why this matters ↓Chapter 05
Why this matters.
Many UK technology companies expand internationally before revisiting the legal and tax structure established during their early growth stages. This often creates hidden risks that only surface when raising institutional capital, hiring internationally, introducing option schemes, acquiring businesses, preparing for exit, or becoming profitable after years of losses.
Cross-border founder structures involving the UK and US are particularly complex because tax outcomes depend heavily on entity classification, shareholder residency, investor rights, profit allocation mechanics, and future operational control.
The earlier these issues are reviewed, the greater the flexibility founders retain.
For scaling technology companies, tax structure is no longer simply a compliance issue. It becomes a strategic infrastructure decision that impacts investor attractiveness, employee incentives, cash flow efficiency, international expansion, M&A readiness, and ultimately founder outcomes.