Blog Archives

I was interested to read that James Hambro have suggested to clients that they may want to consider reviewing assets standing at a gain to see whether they wish to dispose of them now in the expectancy that Capital Gains Tax (CGT) rates will increase after the next budget.CGT is sometimes regarded as a tax on the wealthy, and therefore could be seen as a good target for increased taxation politically. In fact, as identified by St. James Place (https://www.sjp.co.uk/wealth-management/tax-year-end-2018/capital-gains-tax), HM Revenue and Customs raises more money from CGT than it does from Inheritance Tax. If you sell any investments that were not held in a pension fund or an ISA, you could be liable for CGT on the profits you earned. The same goes for sales of buy-to-let property or, indeed, any property which is not your main residence. CGT therefore affects many more people than some may think and any political maneuvering to increase rates could be felt widely.

The Telegraph reports this morning that many executors are not aware that they are liable to pay taxes on income produced by estate assets during the administration period.Executors are personally liable to pay the tax and therefore, if they distribute the whole estate thinking there is nothing else to pay, they may find themselves hit with a liability they do not have the funds to meet. Assets such as cyrptocurrencies and more sophisticated investments can make estates more complex and executors may feel that they need to take an increased amount of advice to ensure that all liabilities are dealt with properly.

Vince Cable has suggested the creation of a ‘citizen fund’ to help the wider population benefit from investment returns.Of particular interest is the suggestion to abolish inheritance tax and instead tax gifts during people’s lifetimes. Lifetime giving can still be a very efficient form of estate planning in the right circumstances but replacing tax on death is unlikely to encourage people to give assets away during their lifetime. Further, the current exemptions are not all the generous and many people already fall foul of the current limits.The other suggestions such as putting ‘capital gains tax at the same level of income tax’ would more likely have a larger impact on the government purse, but will likely prove unpopular, particularly with small business owners who may be already feeling the squeeze due to increased costs.

HMRC failed to apply the 7.5% basic rate dividend tax credit to non-resident trustees in the tax year 2016/17. HMRC has confirmed that it is aware of the issue and that it has resolved the problem for the 2017/18 trust tax calculations, but has not yet confirmed how it intends to respond.These oversights demonstrate the importance of reviewing self assessment tax returns carefully. It is critical that non-resident trustees take appropriate advice if they feel that they may have been exposed to the error. When even HMRC are prone to such lapses it really does highlight the increasing speed with which the offshore tax landscape has changed.

Philip Hammond’s Budget of Autumn 2017 isn’t daring, it may disappoint some, it could be said to take boringness to an art form, but I think it does for the first time in many years contain a vision about the country which can be seen to be shaping the tax announcements. Other than for the fortunate few super rich, UK Budgets and Autumn Statements have been increasingly boring, more memorable for cock ups than any great policy announcement. There has been a growing sense that in the field of personal taxation, tax policy is dead. Chancellors haven’t had any overriding vision guiding and shaping the tax system other perhaps than a consensus that the least well-off should not be burdened by tax. In the main, personal tax policy has been a mess created by a stealth tax here, a raid on the wealthy there, layers of anti-avoidance legislation and investment in compliance. With each passing year it has had less and less of an intelligible overall design and coherence.I think this Budget does contain measures which are consistent with a coherent vision of the country and does suggest the Chancellor believes that tax policy has a role to play in shaping society. The centrepiece of this Budget is undoubtedly the pledge to build 300,000 new homes a year, alongside an SDLT break for first-time buyers, and a promise of extra funding for the NHS. There are a smattering of measures which represent investment in a modern green digital economy. And what all this represents is a small “c” conservative vision of the country. A land of family homes in leafy suburbs and what’s more a freeze on fuel duty and a freeze on alcohol duty so we can enjoy our cars and a Peroni or glass of chardonnay (preferably not at the same time).There are rail cards for millennials because before you graduate to proper motorised family living you need to use the train. Foreigners will be taxed more and tax avoiders and tax evaders will continue to be pursued. As I read through the announcements and thought of what this Budget represents, what came to mind was John Major’s famous description of the UK as “the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and, as George Orwell said, ‘Old maids bicycling to holy communion through the morning mist’”. This feels a lot like the country of my childhood or slightly earlier, pre-Thatcherite, maybe public-minded, possibly wholesome, not very international. The land of Postman Pat.Philip Hammond may have been surprisingly politically astute with this Budget, crafting something which is both a non-event and makes people feel a slight glow inside, like Major’s warm beer. I find it reassuring that there is some sign of direction in tax policy. But if the Chancellor gets to deliver another Budget I think he needs to think harder about what that direction should be, and whether he can take our progress up a gear or two, and how a really imaginative tax policy could assist with that. In 1993, John Major was delivering a pro-European speech but reassuring his audience that traditional English ways would continue unchanged. Philip Hammond, one of the great Remainers of this Government, is looking at Brexit Britain and he is faced with forecasts of feeble growth. Unless something dramatic changes, the beautiful new green suburbs he builds are going to be eerily quiet.

All of us who work in finance and private wealth should be concerned about corruption and money-laundering still taking place in the industry. Most of us believe that promoting artificial avoidance schemes doesn’t do anyone any favours and some of us may even think the wealthy can afford to pay a little more tax! The problem with the BBC story is that it encourages moral panic based on superficial and ill-informed reporting. If cross border finance in itself is the evil then this doesn’t bode well for prosperity! The story about the Duchy of Lancaster in itself is ridiculous because the Duchy is under Government control, the investments were ultimately in UK businesses, they were structured through jurisdictions (the Cayman Islands and Bermuda) under indirect UK government control and with the Queen as head of state, and the Duchy and Queen have a unique tax status. As for Appleby, the leaks seem to have shown the firm in rather a good light, with a concern that structures were managed properly and due diligence processes adhered to. 

Since the death of Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy, at the age of 91 earlier this week, it has come to light that Hefner will be laid to rest beside one of the most famous pin-ups in history: Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn Monroe was the centrefold in the very first issue of Playboy in December 1953 and Hefner credited the inclusion of Marilyn for making the magazine such a success, with the issue completely selling out.It seems Hefner purchased the burial plot beside Marilyn Monroe in 1992 for the sum of $75,000 and has expressed the wish to his executors that his body should be laid to rest there.The law in England and Wales confirms that a testator cannot give binding directions as regards their funeral wishes as this would oust the ultimate rights and duties of the executors. The testator can give directions as to the funeral (Re Read, Galloway v Harris (1892)) or the erection of a tombstone or other monument (Re Dean, Cooper-Dean v Stevens (1889)) and provide for maintenance of his grave (Re Hooper, Parker v Ward (1932)). Nevertheless, the final decision making rests with the executors and, ultimately, the court.It is good practice to ensure that your funeral wishes, if any, are included in your Will so that your executors are aware of them.As for Hefner, who will rest next to one of the most glamorous women of all time for eternity, it certainly is a most fitting farewell…