Offshore companies

Offshore companies

Planning for international private clients often involves the use of non-UK resident companies, whether owned directly by individuals or through an offshore trust/company structure.

Offshore companies are mainly used for UK tax planning when the owner is non-resident or UK resident but not domiciled in the UK. For guidance on the taxation of non-resident individuals and UK resident non-domiciliaries, see the Non-resident individuals—overview and the Non-domiciliaries and the remittance basis—overview.

As a general rule, directly owned offshore companies holding investments and other assets cannot be used to shelter income and gains from UK tax if the owner is UK resident and domiciled. This is the effect of two codes, the transfer of assets code (TAA Code) directed at income and section 3 of Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992) at capital gains. See: UK resident individuals—taxation of income derived from assets held within offshore companies and UK resident individuals—taxation of capital gains derived from assets held within offshore companies below. See also Clarke's Offshore Tax Planning—Trusts and Companies:

•
Chapter 6 Non—resident companies [6.1], and
•
Chapter 15.1 Underlying

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Private Client weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Wigglesworth v Beetson, in which the claimant failed in an action for estoppel and adverse possession; (2) the Hansard Society to host a briefing on parliamentary process for Assisted Dying Bill; (3) Khan v Khan, which considered family property and constructive trusts; (4) analysis of the Autumn Budget announcement to bring unused pension funds and death benefits within the scope of IHT; (5) Palmer v Sans, which found that there was no transaction at an undervalue where property was already held on trust for the transferee; (6) KA v FA (The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening), where the court recognised an overseas adoption notwithstanding failure of common law test; and (7) Kireeva v Bedzhamov, in which the Supreme Court has confirmed the application of the immovables rule to English property.

Privy Council rules BVI company shares are not immovable property (Al Thani v Al Thani)

Private Client analysis: In a decision which will come as a relief to private individuals who own shares in BVI companies, the Privy Council has decided that section 245 of the BVI’s Business Companies Act 2004 does not have the effect of re-categorising shares as immovable property for the purposes of succession. Written by Kyle Bonnell, pupil at XXIV Old Buildings.

Supreme Court confirms application of immovables rule to English property

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Ms Kireeva’s (Russian bankruptcy trustee’s) appeal to overturn the Court of Appeal’s’ decision regarding matters arising out of the bankruptcy of Mr Bedzhamov. Peter Declercq and Patrick Elliot, partners at DCQ Legal (who acted for Ms Kireeva), discuss the implications of the judgment.

UT finds FTT made errors when setting aside HMRC best judgment assessment (HMRC v Sintra Global)

Tax analysis: In Sintra Global, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) insofar as it related to a notice HMRC had issued to an individual making him liable for the payment of a civil evasion penalty charged against a company he was a director of. The UT found that the FTT had failed to follow the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Pegasus Birds in relation to the assessment the penalty was based on.