Can my children own shares in my company? 3

Young working boy with tie on computer

The s660 rules (or settlements legislation) have been around since the 1930s.

The rules stop you passing income to someone else in the family, or giving income or assets to someone else in an effort to reduce your overall tax bill. This is called a “settlement”, and the aim of the legislation is to stop people settling their income on another person who pays tax at a lower rate. (Contractor UK)

There are some interesting cases where business owners have tried to pass shares to their children unsuccessfully

Copeman v Coleman [1939] 22 TC 594

A company had been formed to take over the taxpayer’s business. He held the shares equally with his wife. Later the company created a class of preference shares of £200 each carrying a fixed preferential dividend, the right to vote if such dividend were in arrear for three years or more and the right in a winding up to a return of capital paid up. Some of the shares were taken up by his children on which they paid £10 per share. Dividends substantially in excess of the amounts paid up were then declared and the taxpayer, on behalf of his children claimed repayment of the tax paid in respect of the dividend to the extent of that child’s personal allowance. (http://swarb.co.uk/copeman-v-coleman-1939/)

Crossland v Hawkins [1961] 39 TC 493

The taxpayer, a well known film actor, agreed to work through a company for three years being paid £50 per week. The shares were transferred to his wife and accountant. His father in law set up a £100 settlement for the benefit of his children of which his wife and accountant were the trustees. The fund was used to subscribe for the remaining 98 shares. He appeared in a film for which the company was paid £25,000. The company paid a dividend which was applied by the trustees for the benefit of the children. Jack Hawkins then applied on behalf of his children for a repayment of tax to give effect to their personal allowances. The repayment claim was rejected on the grounds that the whole arrangement was a settlement of which Jack Hawkins was a settlor because he had provided the funds for it. (http://swarb.co.uk/crossland-v-hawkins-ca-1961/)

Butler v. Wildin [1989] STC 22

A company was formed by two brothers who acted as unpaid directors. Shares in the company were initially held by their infant children, which were paid out of gifts from their grandparents. The company acquired a development site using a bank loan, which was guaranteed by the brothers. The company subsequently became profitable, and dividends were subsequently paid to the infant shareholders. The High Court held that the children’s investment of ‘trifling sums’ in the shares and the parent’s provision of services to the company constituted an arrangement. An element of bounty was given by the parents in the free provision of their skill and services, and by adopting any financial risk in the company’s venture. Dividends paid to those children born before the arrangements were made (but not dividends in respect of shares transferred to children born afterwards, as there was no apparent arrangement to benefit future children) were taxable on the parents, under what is now section 660B.(http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-articles/business-tax/is-that-settled-then.html)

Jeremy Vine

Which brings us to the new case of Jeremy Vine

Mr Vine appears to have been using his ten-year-old daughter Martha to avoid tax payments.

The presenter of the Jeremy Vine Show and the TV quiz Eggheads, has been funnelling cash through a limited company, Jelly Vine Productions, of which she is a shareholder.

Jelly Vine Productions had almost £810,000 in cash on its books in 2013 – the last accounts available, and £1million in 2012. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983593/Jeremy-Vine-daughter-10-shareholder-lower-tax-bill.html#ixzz3Z09xqmtO

The rules are clear on this and income given to children under 18 will be taxed on their parents so what did his advisers have in mind?
steve@bicknells.net

P11D – should the employee pay NI on Private School Fees Reply

Schoolchild writting on blackboard.

As with so many tax issues, the paperwork will determine the answer.

Let’s assume your childs school fees are £10,000 a year that means you will need to earn £17,241 per year (based on paying 40% tax and 2% NI) over 10 years that’s £172,414 per child, that’s a lot of fees.

So its no surprise that some parents ask their employer to pay the bill and try to save the employees NI but this can go badly wrong as demonstrated in Ableway Ltd v IRC SpC 294….

Mr W and his wife B were directors and major shareholders of Ableway Ltd. The company’s registered office was the home address of W and B. They arranged for the company to pay their two sons’ school fees, although in an undated letter, they undertook to pay the fees in the event of the company failing to do so.

The Revenue argued that the liability belonged to W and B, and that they had accepted this liability by signing the school entry form. Furthermore, the discharge by an employer of an employee’s pecuniary liability was earnings. The school bursar also confirmed that the parents were liable to pay the fees. He said that the invoice was sent to the person responsible for the fees, but that the parents remained liable to pay them. In the event that the school ever had to take action to recover payment of fees, it would sue the parents, relying on the signed entry form and signed deposit form.

HMRC have guidance on the following situations:

Basically if the company contracts directly with the school and the school confirms in writing that the company is responsible for all fees in all circumstances then the employee will not have to pay employees NI.

This is explained clearly by Indicator – Paying for Education

This saves the employee the 2% NI in our earlier example.

Another idea from Indicator is to have the benefit against the spouse with the lowest tax rate.

steve@bicknells.net

 

 

 

 

Save for Children but save tax where you can Reply

Mother and daughter with piggy bank

Many parents, grandparents and other family members like to save for children but are you paying tax on the interest?

The £100 Rule

HMRC Form R85 is used to claim interest tax free but what you might not realise is that despite your child having a personal tax allowance from birth there is a maximum of £100 per year which can earned tax free in interest and dividends earned on parental/family gifts.

So for 2 parents that’s £200 plus grandparents have the same exemption, but if the interest exceeds the limit even by a small amount, the exemption is lost and whole amount of interest becomes taxable.

Junior ISA

Children can have an ISA in their name, the maximum annual contribution limit is £3,720 (2013/14) in cash or shares but the money will be locked in until the child is 18. The £100 rule doesn’t apply to ISA’s.

Pension

Yes, crazy as it might sound your baby can start a pension plan.

You can receive 20% tax relief even if you don’t pay tax. The maximum you can contribute is £3,600 gross – a payment of £2,880 to which the taxman adds £720. This is the case even for people who don’t pay tax, such as children and non-earning spouses.

steve@bicknells.net