header-logo header-logo

Business as usual?

19 September 2014 / Anna Heenan
Issue: 7622 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

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—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll