.png)
.png)
Dan Neidle’s latest campaign, on schools fees planning (tinyurl.com/ypy6xtjz), is certainly making some advisers uncomfortable. The offshore tax affairs of multi-millionaire public figures seem fair game: probing into advice given by high street accountants to ordinary family companies feels much closer to home for many of us. Many readers – and I include myself here – will have worked for firms which regard the use of grandparental settlements as a legitimate tax planning tool and, as Mr Neidle makes clear, a genuine settlement of shares by a grandparent onto grandchildren does not fall foul of the anti-avoidance rule. At the other extreme, window dressing to make what is in reality a parental settlement look as if the grandparents were the settlor doesn’t and has never worked. I think, though others may disagree, that between those two extremes there are some potential shades of grey needing careful judgment by the adviser.
The key issue here is transparency throughout the process – from advertising through to advice, implementation and disclosure. The recent Airline Placement case (tinyurl.com/4cx3t2ve) shows, albeit in a different context, what can happen where transparency is lacking – I will be sharing my thoughts on the implications of that case in a subsequent issue.
Having one’s feet held to the fire is never a pleasant experience and we would always prefer to be left to our own devices. But challenge can be a good thing. If it is going to happen, I would much prefer it to come from somebody within the tax community who knows what they are talking about, rather than from a politician with their own agenda.
If you do one thing...
Do you need to register for the economic crime levy? Online registration is now open (tinyurl.com/hmrcregeccrlevy).
