Daughter as a shareholder?

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Firstly if they are minor children then they will be held in trust. Possibly simply a bare trust.

Secondly if placing into trust for the benefit of minor children any income is accrued to the benefit of the settlor. The definition of settlement is fairly wide.

However, that is not to say that there has to be a settlement and it has to be caught. But it is certainly more complex than "I'll just establish a discretionary trust".

Tax basics: The settlement provisions and children. By NIchola Ross Martin | AccountingWEB
Parental settlements | STEP
http://www.londontrust.net/filedepot...TTOIA_2005.pdf

True, my answer was obviously grossly simplified.

The correct answer is: settlements legislation can be complex, especially regarding trusts - take professional advice.

[ASB]

This is the crux of it. So long as the children are not minors or the money is paid into a trust to which the donor retains no beneficial interest or control in then its not caught by s624.

Firstly if they are minor children then they will be held in trust. Possibly simply a bare trust.

Secondly if placing into trust for the benefit of minor children any income is accrued to the benefit of the settlor. The definition of settlement is fairly wide.

However, that is not to say that there has to be a settlement and it has to be caught. But it is certainly more complex than "I'll just establish a discretionary trust".

Tax basics: The settlement provisions and children. By NIchola Ross Martin | AccountingWEB
Parental settlements | STEP
http://www.londontrust.net/filedepot...TTOIA_2005.pdf

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

The point of S660 is that you have a controlling interest in the money an dhow it is spent, not that you have paid it out to a connected person.

This is the crux of it. So long as the children are not minors or the money is paid into a trust to which the donor retains no beneficial interest or control in then its not caught by s624.

[northernladuk]

As usual, nice behaviour in the professional forums. Nothing less than expected from you, however.

Coming from a tired old sockie that really needs retiring with virtually zero useful input to the forum I'll take that as a compliment.. Now shush. Back to my interesting thread.

[Ticktock]

I did and he said if Ticktock replies just tell him to go **** himself cause he's a moron . Pretty sound advice as usual.

As usual, nice behaviour in the professional forums. Nothing less than expected from you, however.

[northernladuk]

I did and he said if Ticktock replies just tell him to go **** himself cause he's a moron . Pretty sound advice as usual.

[Ticktock]

Is he just flying against most of the advice we are giving or are there different circumstances here that may not affect us?

What did your accountant say when you asked him? You do have an accountant don't you?

[NickNick]

The piece is badly written (once again promoting the myth that we only pay 20% tax on income, for example), but it depends on where the share income itself ends up. If it is into a trust for example, where it is out of Vine's reach, which is very east to arrange for a minor, it may well be perfectly legal. The point of S660 is that you have a controlling interest in the money an dhow it is spent, not that you have paid it out to a connected person.

That said, I'm not that comfortable with the whole situation...

IIRC the piece originated in Private Eye and was written somewhat differently.

[TheFaQQer]

Nice to see the mainstream press catching up with Private Eye

As the end of his guide said, "Relax - your veritable mountain of cash is safe from the desperate clawing hands of the needy." so he's just clearly following his own advice.

[ASB]

The piece is badly written (once again promoting the myth that we only pay 20% tax on income, for example), but it depends on where the share income itself ends up. If it is into a trust for example, where it is out of Vine's reach, which is very east to arrange for a minor, it may well be perfectly legal. The point of S660 is that you have a controlling interest in the money an dhow it is spent, not that you have paid it out to a connected person.

That said, I'm not that comfortable with the whole situation...

It would have to be in some form of trust due to her age. A bare trust would do it but it could be more complex. S660 and minors is quite explicit, but a discretionary trust could conceivably work.

[ASB]

There is in fact a very specific bit of s660 as was that covers it. Any income in excess of 100 quid from parental gifts is assessed on the parents.

covers everything in fact. The savings account you put a bit in from time to time for example.

[malvolio]

The piece is badly written (once again promoting the myth that we only pay 20% tax on income, for example), but it depends on where the share income itself ends up. If it is into a trust for example, where it is out of Vine's reach, which is very east to arrange for a minor, it may well be perfectly legal. The point of S660 is that you have a controlling interest in the money an dhow it is spent, not that you have paid it out to a connected person.

That said, I'm not that comfortable with the whole situation...

[northernladuk]

Jeremy Vine made daughter, 10, a company director to lower tax bill | Daily Mail Online

'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.’

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?