{"id":9691,"date":"2023-05-21T09:41:32","date_gmt":"2023-05-21T08:41:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=9691"},"modified":"2023-06-05T08:09:26","modified_gmt":"2023-06-05T07:09:26","slug":"widespread-promotion-of-school-fee-tax-avoidance-schemes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2023\/05\/21\/widespread-promotion-of-school-fee-tax-avoidance-schemes\/","title":{"rendered":"Widespread promotion of school fee tax avoidance schemes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
We wrote last week about a school fee tax avoidance scheme, promoted by Signature Tax (the tax boutique owned by the SNP’s new auditors). We’ve since been deluged with reports of other promoters pushing the same scheme. We’ve reported Signature and three other firms to their regulators. More below about who the promoters are, and how they can be stopped<\/em><\/strong>. An obvious wheeze is for wealthy parents to gift a valuable asset (say, shares) to their children. Then dividends on the shares are taxed at the children’s much lower tax rate – potentially saving \u00a3\u00a3\u00a3\u00a3. Parents with three children at an expensive private school could save more than \u00a360k of tax per year<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The wheeze is so obvious that there’s a rule stopping it<\/a>. It’s worth stepping through the legislation, because I think it demonstrates to non-specialists just how straightforward the point is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “relevant child” is defined to mean a child under 18:<\/p>\n\n\n\n And “settlement” and settlor are defined extremely widely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Looking at the legislation, here are some things that are fine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n And here are some things that don’t work:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think most people (specialists or laypeople) reading the legislation above would see immediately that the scheme doesn’t work. There’s even HMRC guidance almost directly on point<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here’s a presentation kindly provided by an outfit called Fortus, in a webinar on their website<\/a>1<\/a><\/sup>(c) Fortus, but there is an obvious public interest and fair dealing justification in making a copy publicly available<\/span>. It’s the same as the Signature scheme<\/a>. It’s also almost exactly the same as the one that HMRC guidance, and common sense, says doesn’t work:2<\/a><\/sup>Actually the scheme in HMRC’s example is less terrible, because the company is new and so there is at least an argument the shares have no value when granted. The Fortus and Signature schemes involve pre-existing companies where the shares are clearly valuable<\/span>. (I’m going to call this the “Signature scheme” just because I came across Signature first.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n So how on earth do Fortus\/Signature think the scheme works? Here are a few possibilities:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I asked Signature and Fortus to comment; neither have responded. I’m making a formal complaint about Signature to the Taxation Disciplinary Board4<\/a><\/sup>Because Signature promote themselves as a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation<\/span>, and to both Signature and Fortus to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n Some advisers are promoting arrangements where grandparents gift property, or shares in a family business, to their grandchildren. We can think this is a good or bad thing from a policy perspective. but it’s clearly within the rules. See, for example, theprivateoffice.com<\/a>, The Money Panel<\/a>, and RDG Accounting<\/a>, Henderson Logie<\/a> and PD Tax Consultants<\/a>. Each makes clear that it can’t be the parents gifting the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But there are other advisers who appear to be either ignorant of the rules, or trying to circumvent the legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accotax<\/a> fail badly: … as they appear to be entirely unaware that parents can’t get a tax benefit from gifting shares in their company to their child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By contrast, TaxQube<\/a><\/strong> are aware of the issue, but say they have a “special structure” to fix it: <\/p>\n\n\n\n When I suggested that sounded like the Signature scheme, they responded by amending their website…<\/p>\n\n\n\n … and then making incoherent legal<\/a> threats<\/a>, but weirdly failing to explain what their “special structure” was. Absent an explanation, it’s reasonable to assume that their reference to a “special structure” was to the Signature scheme, or something like it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Walji & Co<\/a><\/strong> propose something…<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n … that looks like the Signature scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n SFIA Wealth Management<\/a><\/strong> seems even worse than Signature…<\/p>\n\n\n\n … they’re either ignorant of the “indirect” rule or promoting tax evasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I understand from a source that SFIA charges \u00a31,000 to taxpayers just to provide a report proposing their structure (which I assume is going to be similar to Fortus\/Signature), then \u00a37,000 for implementation. Apparently SFIA aren’t too keen on clients taking independent advice – I’d suggest it’s fairly obvious why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I’ve referred Accotax and Walji & Co to the ICAEW<\/a>, and will be referring Tax Qube to the ACCA<\/a>, and SFIA Wealth Management to the FCA. I’ll refer more promoters as further reports come in.<\/p>\n\n\n These schemes have two massive costs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
UPDATE: HMRC have now issued a \u201cSpotlight\u201d<\/a> stating that HMRC also believe the schemes don\u2019t work, and warning people off them<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\nThe rule they’re trying to avoid<\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n
The Signature scheme<\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
What are other advisers up to?<\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div> \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div> \n\t\t\t\n\t\n\t
\n\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
The cost of the schemes<\/h2>\n\n\n