header-logo header-logo

19 September 2014 / Anna Heenan
Issue: 7622 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Business as usual?

How can you protect shares in a family business on divorce, asks Anna Heenan

In Shield v Shield [2014] EWCA Civ 1136, the Court of Appeal was called to decide upon the beneficial ownership of shares in a family company. The case demonstrates how tax planning and asset protection concerns can conflict and highlights the need to be mindful of both when advising a family business.

The company in question was RA Shield Holdings Limited (RASH). It was formed in 2005 after the husband’s previous company was restructured to revive its fortunes. Tax advice upon restructuring provided that if the husband retained control of the business until his death, his shares would attract business property relief for the purposes of inheritance tax and that there would be an uplift in the base cost of his shares for capital gains tax purposes. At the time of the restructuring, both the husband and wife intended to leave their shares to their son, Christopher, and made wills doing so.

Following the restructuring, the shareholdings in RASH were:

  • Husband:
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll