header-logo header-logo

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

Business as usual?

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: 15,108 A shares
  • Wife: 1,660 B Shares
  • Christopher: 17,011
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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll