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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll