Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for small & medium business.

What the difference between a share sale and an asset sale ?

There are two basic structures for transferring a business.  An asset sale is where the buyer purchases a collection of assets and legal rights (and sometimes liabilities) relating to the business.  An example of this might be a grocery shop business where the buyer purchases the business premises, fixtures, fittings and equipment used by the business, stock and takes on the employees.  Most transfers of small businesses are asset sales. 

The other type of business transfer is a share purchase.  This type of business transfer is only available where the business is run by a limited company.  Rather than the buyer purchase the various elements of the business from the limited company, what happens is that the buyer purchases the limited company itself by acquiring its shares.

Under an asset sale, the seller could be any of a sole trader, partnership or limited company.  However, with a share transfer, this option is only available where the business being purchased is owned by a limited company.

Both types of business transfer result in ultimate ownership of the business changing hands but there are differences in legal and tax matters concerning the two methods.

Asset sale

The types of assets, rights and liabilities which might feature in an asset sale include:

Business goodwill

Business information and records

IT systems and software

Intellectual property rights

Plant and machinery

Leasehold or freehold premises

Stock

Work in progress

The benefit (or the burden) of contracts

The parties usually agree that certain assets used by the business are excluded from the sale.  Things like cash in the bank, debts and liabilities of the business and insurance claims are usually excluded.

The key advantage of an asset sale is that the buyer and the seller have great flexibility over what is included in the sale, what is excluded and exactly how the deal can be structured.

Whilst this is an advantage, it can mean that sometimes asset sales become more complex.  One example is where leasehold property is involved.  With an asset sale, the leasehold will have to be transferred specifically to the buyer.  This means that the landlord will need to be involved in consenting to and agreeing the terms on which the lease is transferred.  It also means that there will be additional legal costs including the landlord’s legal costs to pay as part of the transaction.

Another example is where contracts need to be novated and any assets which are on hire purchase have to be transferred specifically to the buyer and where this requires consent, from the hire purchase provider.

Asset transfers will almost always be subject to the TUPE regulations which means that the contracts of employment of all employees automatically transfers to the buyer at the time of the business transfer.

A key feature of asset purchases is that the tax treatment is generally very much less favourable than a share transfer.  There is potentially a VAT liability for one or both parties and there will be a Capital Gains Tax liability on the seller.

Share sale

In UK company law, a limited company has a separate legal identity to its owners (its owners being the shareholders).  This means that when a company carried on a business, it is the limited company itself which is the owner of the various assets and rights etc that make up the business.  It is not the shareholders that are the owners of the business, it is the limited company.  With a share transfer, the business itself does not change hands.  The business is still owned by the limited company but it is the ownership of the limited company that has changed.  

What this means is that unlike with an asset sale, all aspects of the business remain exactly as they were before the transfer has taken place.  It means that assets do not have to be transferred individually, it is only ownership of the company that has changed.

The key advantage of share transfers is that there is simplicity in that there is no need to transfer any individual assets, rights or contracts etc.  So, for example, if the limited company is the tenant under a lease, the landlord of the present premises does not need to be involved because ownership of the lease has not changed.

It means that it is not necessary to identify and account for every asset and piece of equipment etc owned by the company.  It all remains in place as it was. 

A share transfer allows for a cleaner break by the sellers of the shares.  It means all liabilities etc remain with the company and they step back from all of that at the point when they have sold their particular shares.

Because the employees are still employed by the limited company, there is no need to consult and inform them under the TUPE regulations.

The seller has big tax advantages with selling shares in a company, rather than being involved in an asset sale.  In most cases there is no Capital Gains Tax to pay and the seller will usually get 100% tax relief.  The buyer in a share transfer has to pay Stamp Duty on the shares purchased at 0.5%.
Case Study : Operator Survives with Warning
Modern v Traditional Property Auctions

Call us for free on 0800 1777 522


Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid Input

 


We advise and represent transport businesses throughout the whole of the UK in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland

Uk





Latest Blogs

Anyone seeking to operate heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) or passenger service vehicles (PSVs) must approach the Operator’s Licence (O Licence) application process with precision and care—especially where...
Applying for an Operator’s Licence (O Licence) is more than just completing a form—it's a demonstration of trustworthiness. The Traffic Commissioner (TC) will only grant a licence if satisfied that th...
Being called to a Public Inquiry is a serious matter for any operator. But facing two inquiries within a year can put an operator’s very survival at risk. In this case, our client—a licensed operator—...

IF YOU NEED HELP OR ADVICE

Call us today for free on 0800 1777 522
Send us an enquiry online via our contact form HERE
Email us on contact@nalegal.co.uk

Latest Transport Law

Transport Law

Anyone seeking to operate heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) or passenger service vehicles (PSVs) must approach the Operator’s Licence (O Licence) application process with precision and care—especially where there is a history of regulatory issues. This is particularly important in cases involving previously surrendered or revoked licences.

We were recently instructed by a company whose previous O Licence had been revoked within the past year. The company had entered financial difficulty and was placed into administration. They notified the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC), but unfortunately failed to respond adequately to follow-up inquiries. When the OTC requested further information, the company did not reply. Although they attempted to surrender the licence voluntarily, the Traffic Commissioner (TC) ultimately revoked it.

A new application was submitted by a newly formed company with the same directors. This triggered a public inquiry before the TC—a crucial opportunity to demonstrate two key points:

• That the company would be fully compliant with O Licence requirements

• That the directors retained the necessary repute, despite the circumstances surrounding the administration

We worked closely with the company’s transport manager and directors to prepare a comprehensive submission, which was sent in advance of the hearing (typically required at least two weeks prior). With experienced staff now in place, the compliance issues were straightforward to address. The more challenging aspect was persuading the TC that the directors’ conduct did not warrant refusal of the licence.

TCs scrutinise applications rigorously to uphold the principle of fair competition. In this case, our detailed submission addressed all potential concerns. At the hearing, the director and transport manager provided clear and credible first-person evidence, reinforcing the points made in our written materials. We argued that this operator could be trusted and would conform to O Licence compliance and fair competition.

The licence was granted with immediate effect.

Transport Law
Applying for an Operator’s Licence (O Licence) is more than just completing a form—it's a demonstration of trustworthiness. The Traffic Commissioner (TC) will only grant a licence if satisfied that the applicant can be relied upon to comply with the responsibilities that come with it. That trust starts with the application.

The Application Form – A Critical First Impression

For new applicants, the first and most important step is completing the application form correctly. Done properly, a licence can often be granted within the target timeframe of six weeks or less. Done incorrectly, and the process can stall or even result in a proposed refusal and a call to attend a public inquiry (PI).

One of our clients experienced exactly that.

The Issue: An Honest Mistake with Serious Consequences

Our client had submitted an application which, on its face, appeared to be incomplete. Specifically, it failed to declare a historic association with a previous O Licence application. While the omission was a genuine mistake, it raised a red flag for the TC.

The Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) treated the matter seriously. The failure to declare past associations can suggest negligence—or worse—and it called into question the applicant’s reliability.

Our Approach: Full Disclosure and Positive Evidence

We assisted our client in preparing a comprehensive written submission to the TC's office in advance of the hearing. This included:

  • A clear explanation of how the error occurred.

  • Evidence showing that there was no intent to mislead.

  • Detailed information about the client’s proposed compliance systems.

  • Supporting documentation showing that the error had brought no advantage—only the disadvantage of triggering a PI.

The Outcome: Licence Granted with Conditions

At the public inquiry, the client gave open and honest answers about the error and demonstrated an up-to-date understanding of the maintenance and compliance obligations expected of O Licence holders.

The TC was ultimately satisfied that the application had been made in good faith. The licence was granted, with a condition that the operator complete an independent systems audit within six months and submit the findings to the OTC.

Key Takeaway: Accuracy is Essential

This case serves as a clear reminder of the importance of getting the application right first time. Even minor errors can result in delays, additional scrutiny, and the stress and cost of a public inquiry.

If you're applying for an O Licence, it pays to seek professional guidance from the start. Our team can help you navigate the process, ensure your paperwork is accurate and complete, and give you the best chance of a smooth application.
Transport Law
Being called to a Public Inquiry is a serious matter for any operator. But facing two inquiries within a year can put an operator’s very survival at risk. In this case, our client—a licensed operator—found themselves before the Traffic Commissioner for the second time in under twelve months. The issue? Failure to follow through on a straightforward undertaking given at the first hearing.

The First Public Inquiry

The operator initially faced a Public Inquiry due to several maintenance failings, along with wider compliance concerns. On paper, the case looked serious. However, the company was committed to improvement and had started taking corrective action even before the hearing date was set.

We were instructed in good time and provided detailed advice not just on the maintenance issues raised, but also on other areas of compliance that had not been fully appreciated by the operator. The company took on board our recommendations and made a robust response to the DVSA’s findings. At the inquiry, the Traffic Commissioner acknowledged the positive steps taken, and the outcome was a formal warning—no more.

The Missed Undertaking

One of the undertakings given at the first hearing was for the operator to arrange an independent systems audit within six months. This was a clear and reasonable requirement. Unfortunately, the audit was not carried out within the required timeframe, and no communication was made with the Traffic Commissioner’s office.

When the TC’s office followed up, the operator explained that the failure had been an honest oversight. An audit was booked immediately, but by then it was too late to avoid the consequences. A second Public Inquiry was called—this time with the O Licence at serious risk.

The Second Hearing

We were instructed once again. The operator accepted our further advice and offered several new undertakings to address the situation. As before, the company’s director and transport manager presented well at the hearing.

In our legal submissions, we emphasised that this was a compliant and responsible operator that had learned from past mistakes and was not a threat to road safety or fair competition. We acknowledged the seriousness of the repeat appearance but highlighted the progress made and the company’s genuine efforts to get things right.

The Outcome

Despite being unimpressed by the need for a second hearing, the Traffic Commissioner accepted that the business had taken appropriate action and showed genuine intent to comply. While revocation was considered, the TC decided—just—to stop short of it.

The result was a short, two-week curtailment of vehicle authority. Given the circumstances, this was a remarkable outcome.

Our client recognised how close they had come to losing their licence altogether and expressed their sincere thanks for our guidance and representation throughout both proceedings.