{"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>.

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\n

The rule they’re trying to avoid<\/h2>\n\n\n

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

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

“relevant child” is defined to mean a child under 18:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And “settlement” and settlor are defined extremely widely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Looking at the legislation, here are some things that are fine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n