Jeremy Vine made daughter, 10, a company director to lower tax bill | Daily Mail Online
Hmmm seems to be a lot wrong with this. To only pay himself divis he would either need a waiver or his wife and daughter have B class shares. Either way that's against most of the advice I've ever had.
Making his daughter is perfectly legal maybe bit common???
Is he just flying against most of the advice we are giving or are there different circumstances here that may not affect us?
'What is a little unusual is his daughter. Let’s be honest, she is unlikely to have said, “Daddy, I want to spend my pocket money on shares in the company”.’
Jelly Vine Productions’ accounts do not disclose how much it has paid out or whether it has paid dividends to all three family members, or just Mr Vine himself.
Mr Murphy said Mr Vine could have named his daughter as a shareholder for ‘long-term tax-planning’ purposes, reducing the tax she would pay if she inherits part of the business.
Alternatively, Mr Vine may have made his wife and daughter shareholders to split the dividend payouts, keeping them just small enough to ensure they are taxed at a lower rate, rather than at 40 or 45 per cent.
A spokesman for the presenter said the reason for making his daughter a shareholder was ‘private’ but ‘perfectly legal’, adding: ‘I don’t think it is cynical. What Jeremy is doing is very common. If the Government makes laws that allow people to do things that are advantageous, it is up to the Government to change the laws.’
Jelly Vine Productions’ accounts do not disclose how much it has paid out or whether it has paid dividends to all three family members, or just Mr Vine himself.
Mr Murphy said Mr Vine could have named his daughter as a shareholder for ‘long-term tax-planning’ purposes, reducing the tax she would pay if she inherits part of the business.
Alternatively, Mr Vine may have made his wife and daughter shareholders to split the dividend payouts, keeping them just small enough to ensure they are taxed at a lower rate, rather than at 40 or 45 per cent.
A spokesman for the presenter said the reason for making his daughter a shareholder was ‘private’ but ‘perfectly legal’, adding: ‘I don’t think it is cynical. What Jeremy is doing is very common. If the Government makes laws that allow people to do things that are advantageous, it is up to the Government to change the laws.’
Making his daughter is perfectly legal maybe bit common???
Is he just flying against most of the advice we are giving or are there different circumstances here that may not affect us?
Comment