Insufficient business insurance is put in place, partly because of its perceived difficulty. That the pre-owned assets tax could apply to policies held in business trusts does not help as it adds another layer of confusion and potentially another reason to procrastinate.HM Revenue & Customs originally made the following statement with regard to business trusts in its guidance notes on Poat: “A partner in a business effects a life insurance policy subject to a business trust. The partner is a potential beneficiary. “Provided the arrangement is commercial, it is not a gift with reservation for inheritance tax. However, the trust is a settlement for inheritance tax purposes and a charge to tax will arise under paragraph 8 of this schedule.” This was then superseded by the following guidance released on the HMRC website on April 4, 2005: “In some cases, policies are taken out on each partner’s life solely for the purposes of providing funds to enable their fellow partners to purchase his/her share from the partner’s beneficiaries on their death. The partner is not a potential beneficiary of his/her own policy. In such circumstances, a charge to tax under paragraph 8 of this schedule [that is, schedule 15, FA 2004] will not arise. “However, in many cases, the partner retains a benefit for themselves, for example, they can cash in the policy during their lifetime for their own benefit. “In such cases, even if the arrangement is on commercial terms so that it is not a gift with reservation for inheritance tax, the trust is a settlement for inheritance tax purposes and a charge to tax under paragraph 8 will arise.” Life policies will typically be effected subject to these trusts, with the main objective being to enable cash to be placed in the hands of the co-business owners on the death of a business owner. While HMRC talks in terms of partners, these arrangements are also frequently set up by shareholders in a private limited company. Under the terms of a typical trust, only business owners who are participating in the overall arrangement will be able to benefit. Spouses and family members who are not also participating business owners should be excluded. However, in order to provide flexibility should the settlor leave the business, the settlor will be a beneficiary, either as a member of a discretionary class to whom appointments can be made or as a beneficiary who will benefit on leaving the business when benefits revert to him or her automatically under the trust. Some trusts may incorporate both provisions. As indicated above, HMRC has expressed the view that, provided the arrangement is a commercial transaction, that is, only participating business owners can benefit and each business owner pays an amount commensurate with his or her expected benefit under the arrangement, so that the arrangement is demonstrably on arm’s-length terms, there will be no donative intent and no transfer of value. Therefore, in reliance on the exemption in section 10 IHTA 1984 (exemption for dispositions not intended to confer a gratuitous benefit), no gift with reservation issues arise. In this respect, so-called equalisation arrangements ensuring that the total cost of premiums is born equitably will be extremely helpful. The main driver for these will be commercial but they will also deliver a valuable tax benefit. As the April 2005 statement by HMRC indicates, however, the official view is that, despite commerciality, the trust is a settlement and, as the settlor can benefit and the gift with reservation rules do not apply, the Poat rules could apply. Of course, the Poat rules can only apply if the settlor can benefit under the trust. So a business trust under which the settlor is excluded from all benefit will not give rise to any Poat problems. Where the settlor can benefit, it will be in two possible ways. The first is where the settlor is one of the potential beneficiaries to whom the trustees can make an appointment of benefits, perhaps if he or she leaves the business. After the appointment, which would be exempt from inheritance tax, the trustees could then advance the policy to the settlor in satisfaction of his or her absolute beneficial interest. The beneficial and legal ownership of the policy would then converge in the hands of the settlor. Care wouldneed to be taken so that a subsequent capital gains tax charge did not arise on the payment of policy benefits. If, subject to the CGT warning immediately above, the policy were assigned by the settlor into a trust for his or her family, care should also be exercised over the amount of the transfer of value for IHT. Provided the life assured were in good health and there was no surrender value in the policy, then if the policy was a term insurance policy, there would be no transfer of value. If the policy were other than a term policy, then the transfer of value would be equal to the surrender value or premiums paid if greater. However, even with a life policy and a life assured in good health, the ascertained benefit is likely to be significantly below the de minimis limit for the Poat charge to apply. This is because unless the policy value is currently greater than 100,000, the ascertained benefit will not exceed the de minimis limit of 5,000.
Co-operative Financial Services this week announced the creation of CIS General Insurance, insuring all new and renewing CIS motor, home and commercial products.CFS says creating the new division will provide greater clarity for CFS general insurance operation. The group says its GI net premium income was 649m in 2004 and 318m in the first half […]
It was interesting to note the recent comments from some high-profile multi-managers that investment trusts are too troublesome to include within their portfolios.
Gross mortgage lending in December was the strongest on record, according to figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders.This is despite the figure falling by 6% to an estimated 26.3bn. Yet this was 25% more than the 21bn achieved in December 2004 and is the strongest figure for December on record. The figures also show […]
Chelsea Financial Services managing director Darius McDermott has another weapon in his deadly public relations arsenal – he can play darts. And really, really well. McDermott was in best form last week, soundly beating MM news editor James “I beat Andy Fordham” Phillipps and investment reporter Matt Davis after pretending he was just an average […]
Derek discusses a number of self-help stories as examples of where he is finding good opportunities in the UK With the FTSE trading at historically high levels, many investors have questioned whether UK equities continue to offer value. But, as Derek points out, the headline figures mask many opportunities at a sector level. He has […]
- Top trends
News and expert analysis straight to your inboxSign up
Latest from Money Marketing
As the outlook for the UK’s economy remains uncertain, how can advisers prepare portfolios for any change in inflation? As higher inflation fails to appear on the horizon and wages grow faster than expected, fund managers are weighing up their portfolio moves for any potential changes in the economy. The UK consumer prices index rose […]
IFA directors Kevin and Cheryl Neal have been banned from being company directors by the Insolvency Service for six and four years, respectively. The married couple ran the now-defunct Hertfordshire-based Kevin Neal Associates Wealth Management. They were disqualified for taking assets from an insolvent company. The firm had been incorporated to take over the business interests […]
Hartley Pensions has bought the “untainted” assets of the Lifetime Sipp Company, which went into administration earlier this year. An update published today on the website of Lifetime’s administrators Kingston Smith & Partners says Hartley Pensions has also agreed to administer the tainted Sipps held by Lifetime Sipp. The administrator described tainted assets as those where […]