Watch Your SIPP REIT Dividends, RPI Change and Brexit

Many shareholders hold Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) as they provide a high level of dividends, partly because they have an obligation to distribute most of their income to shareholders as Property Income Dividends (PIDs). These are taxed in a different way to other dividends. They incur a tax charge of 20% which is like a withholding tax. But if you hold the shares in a SIPP then the SIPP can reclaim the 20% tax from HMRC.

I hold two SIPPs. One operator routinely refunds the REIT tax but the other one (operated by Curtis Banks) appears to have no system to do so. I have had to chase them more than once about outstanding refunds going back several years. Currently they are saying that they have to wait until the year end before they can submit a reclaim because they cannot submit claims of less than £5,000 during the year.

Shareholders who have REITs in their SIPP portfolios need to keep an eye on such refunds otherwise you could be losing hundreds if not thousands of pounds in missing tax claims.

Yesterday, among other activity by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he issued a letter indicating that despite demands to revise the calculation of the Retail Price Index (RPI) he is putting off consent for any change until at least 2025 with consultation on when it might be implemented. See the letter here: https://tinyurl.com/y3muwr3g

There is of course strong opposition from some people to any change in the calculation of RPI. For example it might impact the returns on Index Linked Gilts that use it as it is generally seen as giving slightly higher figures than other inflation indices. But other people would welcome a change because it affects the cost of rail fares for example. It does appear wise to me to have extensive consultation on such a change before it is implemented, particularly where it affects people who have purchased investments such as index linked gilts or national savings certificates on the basis of the current formula.

The Chancellor, Savid Javid, did of course deliver a Spending Round review document to the Commons yesterday – you may have missed it among all the Brexit debates. In summary it commits to higher expenditure on schools, the NHS, the police, on social care, on defence and on other crowd-pleasing measures – a total of £13.8 billion. This should help to boost the economy, and might be seen as a typical pre-election attempt to win votes.

I watched the debates in Parliament yesterday and am baffled by what MPs have decided to do. One Bill (the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.6) Bill if you wish to read it) which seems likely to be approved demands that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the European Council requesting a further extension past October for Brexit. The proposed letter is specifically worded.

But under the UK’s, albeit unwritten, constitution the Prime Minister’s powers include: “Relationships with other heads of government” – see https://tinyurl.com/y3wneo9s for more on the Prime Minister’s powers. In effect MPs seem to want to take over executive powers in our relationship with foreign powers such as the EU. But the Prime Minister can surely contradict any such letter or undermine it in other ways because he alone has the powers to negotiate with the EU (as Mrs May negotiated the proposed Withdrawal Agreement”). This just gets us into a constitutional and political crisis.

The second decision by MPs was not to support the Prime Minister’s request for a General Election which would be one way out of the impasse. That leaves the Prime Minister and his Government in an impossible situation, particularly as now the Government has no overall majority in Parliament. In effect they may find it impossible to get any business through. This can surely not continue for long.

Whether you are a Brexiteer or a Remainer, surely you should be concerned by this turn of events which seems to be driven more by emotions about Brexit and opinions on the merits of the Prime Minister than any rational consideration of the constitutional crisis that is being created and the overall wishes of the electorate.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Removing Directors, Ventus VCTs, Rent Controls and HS2

Replacing the directors of companies by shareholders can be enormously difficult. Although I have been instrumental in the past in helping that process in several companies, it takes enormous effort and a lengthy timescale to achieve it. ShareSoc director Cliff Weight has published a very perceptive article on the problems of doing so at the Ventus VCTs.

Problems faced by shareholders who are unhappy with the directors of a company are a) communicating with all other shareholders now that many are in nominee accounts and the costly process of writing to shareholders on the register via post (and processing the register into usable format for mailing); b) the existing directors of a company using the resources of the company (i.e. shareholders funds) to campaign actively against any change including the use of expensive proxy advisors to contact shareholders via telephone; c) the role of IFAs who advise their clients or who manage their portfolios and who can influence the shareholder voting; and d) the inertia of institutional investors (or to quote someone from the FT today: about 60% of company investors are passive shareholders and ‘don’t care’).

In the case of the Ventus VCTs, some shareholders are unhappy with the management fees as no new investments are being made by the company and are unhappy with the actions of the directors. They have tabled requisitions for the Annual General Meetings at Ventus VCT and Ventus 2 VCT on the 8th August to remove all the directors and appoint new ones. Of particular concern is the current two-year termination notice on the management agreement which is now being proposed to extend further. It is never a good idea for investment trusts to have long termination periods in contracts with the manager.

You can read Cliff Weight’s blog article here: https://tinyurl.com/y2de9vaa . There is also an article covering this topic in this weeks Investor’s Chronicle under the title “Limits of Influence”. It’s well worth reading.

How to solve these problems? I suggest the following: a) a reform to put all shareholders (including beneficial owners) on the register of companies; b) put shareholders email addresses on the register so that communicating with them can be done at reasonable cost – it’s surely unreasonable in the modern age to only have postal addresses which adds to costs enormously; c) limit how much can be spent on proxy advisors to oppose shareholder requisitions; and d) exclude passive institutional investors who have no interest as owners from voting.

Rent Controls

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is intending to develop proposals for rent controls in London so as to “stabilise” or reduce property rents in London (or make them “more affordable” as he puts it). That’s despite the fact that he has no legal powers to do so and a Conservative government would likely block such proposals. But Jeremy Corbyn supports the idea. The Mayor clearly sees this as a vote winner for his re-election campaign next year as he claims 68% of Londoner’s support rent controls!

Some of my readers probably invest in buy-to-let properties so such proposals will worry them considerably. On the other hand, those who rent houses or flats in London are undoubtedly concerned about the cost of renting and the rapid rise in rents in London. Some are being forced out of London or have to move to smaller properties.

But rent controls never work and create all kinds of negative side-effects, or unintended consequences. When I moved to London in the 1960s, rent controls were in place and had been since 1945 in various forms (there is good coverage of the history of rent controls in London on Wikipedia). In the 1960s, unfurnished properties were almost impossible to find or were horribly expensive as landlords had withdrawn from the market. Rachmanism to force tenants out of rent controlled properties was also rife and what property there was available for rent on the market was often in very poor condition because landlords simply could not justify spending money on maintenance. We definitely do not want to return to the 1960s despite Jeremy Corbyn’s desire to put us there!

Rent controls are not the answer, as many studies of such schemes has shown. The Mayor needs to do more to tackle the housing problem in London by ensuring more home are built, encouraging movement of people out of London, and discouraging new immigration into the capital from elsewhere. But you can read the Mayor’s press release here if you wish to learn more about his plans: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/to-tackle-affordability-crisis

HS2 and Brexit

The latest report that HS2 may cost an extra £30bn, meaning it could cost as much as £85bn in total, surely makes it even less justifiable. Enabling a very few people to save a few minutes on the train journey time from London to Birmingham at that cost makes no sense, although there might be more justification for expanding capacity and speed on routes in the North of England. However, it would surely be much better to spend that kind of money on an improved road network where the benefits are much greater. The Alliance of British Drivers has just published an analysis of road expenditure versus taxation which includes a comparison of road versus rail expenditure. It’s well worth reading – see here: https://www.abd.org.uk/road-investment-and-road-user-taxation-the-truth/ .

Now the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) have recently suggested that a “no-deal” Brexit would blow a £30bn hole in the public finances. Even if you accept that is true, and many do not, there appears to be a simple solution therefore. Cancel HS2 just to be on the safe side.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

Woodford Changes, FT Political Comment, and Digital Services Tax

Apparently Neil Woodford is losing some of his senior staff. Perhaps he needs to cut costs as the funds being managed by his firm have shrunk as investors have walked and holdings in the funds have shrunk in value. But the Equity Income Fund is still closed to redemptions with no certain date when it will reopen, and there is no sign of the vigorous action I suggested. I put forward these alternatives on June 5th, but Neil Woodford is clearly not rushing into action:

1) That Neil Woodford appoint someone else to manage the fund – either an external fund management firm or a new fund management team and leader. Neil Woodford needs to withdraw from acting as fund manager and preferably remove his name from the fund; 2) Alternatively that a fund wind-up is announced in a planned manner; 3) Or a takeover/merger with another fund be organised – but that would not be easy as the current portfolio is not one that anyone else would want.

Once a reputation is lost, resignations should follow, with new leadership put in place. Which brings me onto the subject of the comments in the Financial Times over the last two days over the position of our ambassador to the USA and Brexit.

Yesterday I sent these comments to the FT’s political editor about his views on the position of Sir Kim Darroch which were headlined “Darroch pays price for would-be PM’s craven and shameful conduct”:

“Dear Mr Shrimsley,

I found your article in today’s FT on the US Ambassador and Boris Johnson most objectionable. Mr Johnson’s comments on Sir Kim Darroch’s position were restrained and not unreasonable. President Trump has indicated he will not work with our ambassador which surely makes his position untenable. There is no point in the UK defending or retaining him in post. He has subsequently resigned – and quite rightly.

Sir Kim clearly made some injudicious comments which unfortunately have leaked out even though foreign embassies have very secure communications facilities. Was this in a private communication by him? If so it was unwise in the extreme. But if there is to be any witch hunt it should be focussed on that issue alone.

This has nothing to do with Brexit and it should have nothing to do with your newspaper’s dislike of Trump or support for Brexit. So I suggest your article was misconceived as was the accompanying FT article printed on the same page about the relationship between the Civil Service and Government Ministers. The fact that Boris Johnson failed to defend or back Darroch while Jeremy Hunt rushed injudiciously to do so surely shows which politician is wiser.”

Today we have another article in the FT so extreme as to be comic by Martin Wolf which is headlined “Brexit means goodbye to Britain as we know it”. It suggests the UK will lose its reputation for being stable, pragmatic and respected. It describes Boris Johnson as a serial fantasist and concludes that the UK is no longer a “serious country”.

But the FT did cover well the publication of draft legislation on a new Digital Services Tax – see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-new-digital-services-tax . This will impose a tax on companies that operate social media platforms, search engines or online marketplaces to UK users. This is aimed to collect tax on revenues in such companies that are currently avoided by the fact they frequently operate from low tax jurisdictions. The focus is clearly on companies such as Alphabet (Google) and Facebook who generate large revenues from the UK but pay relatively little tax.

However there are some UK companies that are potentially liable such as Rightmove or Just Eat but they are likely not to have to pay because a group’s worldwide revenues from these digital activities needs to be more than £500m with more than £25m of these revenues derived from UK users.

The USA is crying foul over a similar French tax and surely quite rightly. The size exclusion means only the big US firms are going to be liable, and there is the issue of double taxation – they will be taxed on both revenue in the UK and potentially profits also. I suggest the USA has a justifiable complaint. It should surely be a tax on all such companies other than very small ones, with a deduction from Corporation Tax allowed to offset the double taxation issue.

There is one thing for certain. Such measures from the UK and France may threaten retaliation by the USA and might certainly jeopardize any new trade agreement between the UK and USA post-Brexit.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Inheritance Tax Simplification – Perhaps

On Friday (5th July) the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) published their second report on the simplification of Inheritance Tax (IHT). You only need to read the report to see how complex it is at present. They have made some recommendations for changes but they are relatively minor. Major changes were ruled out. Even the suggested changes need to be accepted by the Treasury so they may not be implemented, and even if they are it appears likely that they would not happen quickly. These are some of the key proposals:

  • Exemptions for gifts might be simplified. For example, the exemption for “normal expenditure out of income” is unclear in effect and requires detail record keeping for many years which few people are capable of doing. They suggest it be replaced with a higher personal gift allowance. Tip: keep a spreadsheet of all income and expenditure (including gifts) if you are making personal gifts at present.
  • The 7-year period after which gifts are free from IHT also creates problems in record keeping (even bank statements are not retrievable after 6 years), particularly as it can extend to 14 years. Taper relief is another complication. The proposal is to scrap taper relief and have a simple 5-year rule for exemption.
  • The residence nil-rate band introduced a lot of complications in IHT calculations and received a lot of negative comments but they don’t propose to remove or simplify this area as they say it’s still relatively new and more time is required to evaluate its effectiveness. But it says some solicitors choose not to advise clients about this concession because it is so complicated!
  • They propose no change to the provision that reduces the IHT tax rate on all assets to 36% if a person leaves more than 10% of their estate to charity despite the fact that it is little used. Note: this is a very useful facility so if you have a will that does not include such a provision then you need to review it because it can reduce your overall IHT bill.
  • Business property relief, particularly on “unlisted” AIM shares, was considered in the review. It questions whether third party investors in AIM traded shares meet the “policy objective” of Business Property Relief (BPR). But it makes no specific recommendation other than noting that removing APR (Agricultural Property Relief) and BPR would fund a reduction in the main rate of IHT to 33.7% from 40%. However it does point out the anomalies in determining whether a business is trading or is just an investment vehicle and in non-controlling shareholdings held indirectly. It suggests this be reviewed.

Is there a threat to IHT relief on AIM shares? It is not clear that there is and certainly not in any short-term time frame. In any case, investing in AIM shares simply because they offer IHT relief is a bad policy. Investment should never be driven by tax considerations. In addition the requirement to hold them for 2 years makes for dubious trading decisions and the complexity in record keeping if one trades in the shares of AIM companies can be mind-boggling.

In summary the proposed changes, even if HM Treasury supports them, are not going to simplify IHT that much. You will still need to take expert advice on this area of your financial affairs and tax accountants will not be put out of work. There is no revolution proposed.

You can read the OTS report here: https://tinyurl.com/y65jubxz

Or read my original comments on what should have been done here: https://roliscon.blog/2018/05/31/inheritance-tax-review/

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

LoopUp Profit Warning and Brexit Party Policy

Conference calling AIM company LoopUp (LOOP) issued a trading statement this morning which contained a profit warning. At the time of writing the share price is down 47% on the day but it has been falling sharply in recent days which suggests the bad news had already leaked out.

This is an example of what happens when lofty growth expectations are revised downwards. Revenue is now expected to be down 7% on the previous market consensus and EBITDA down 20%. The company blames the shortfall on “subdued revenue across its long-term customer base” driven by macro-economic factors and diversion of sales staff into training new ones.

LoopUp is presenting at the ShareSoc seminar event on the 10th July so it will be interesting to hear what they have to say about this – see https://www.sharesoc.org/events/sharesoc-growth-company-seminar-in-london-10-july-2019/ . This news comes only a month after LoopUp held a Capital Markets Day when there was no hint of these problems. I did a report on that here: https://roliscon.blog/2019/06/07/broker-charges-proven-vct-performance-fee-and-loopup-seminar/

I do hold a few shares in LoopUp but thankfully not many.

Brexit Party Policy

I mentioned in a recent blog post that the Brexit Party is looking for policy suggestions to enable them to develop a platform for any prospective General Election. Here’s what I sent them with respect to financial matters:

  1. The personal taxation system is way too complicated and needs drastically simplifying. At the lower end the tax credit system is wide open to fraud while those on low incomes are taxed when they should not be. The personal tax allowance, both the basic rates, and higher rates, need to be raised to take more people out of tax altogether.
  2. The taxation of capital gains is also now too complicated, while tax is paid on capital gains that simply arise from inflation, which are not real gains at all. They should revert to being indexed as they were some years ago. For almost anyone, calculating your own tax that is payable is now way too difficult and hence requiring the paid services of accountants using specialist software.
  3. Inheritance tax is another over-complex system that wealthy people avoid by taking expert advice while the middle class end up paying it. It certainly needs grossly simplifying, or scrapping altogether as a relatively small amount of tax is actually collected from it.
  4. The taxation of businesses is inequitable with the growth of the internet. Small businesses, particularly retailers, pay a disproportionate level of tax in business rates while their internet competitors often avoid VAT via imports. VAT is now wide open to fraud and other types of abuse such as under-declarations, partly because of the EU VAT arrangements. VAT is in principle a simple tax and the alternative of a sales tax would create anomalies but VAT does need to be reformed and simplified.
  5. All the above tax simplifications would enable HMRC to be reduced in size and the time wasted in form filling by individuals and businesses reduced. Everyone would be a winner, and wasted resources and expenditure reduced.
  6. The taxation of company dividends on shares is now an example of the same profits being taxed twice – once in Corporation Tax on the company, and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. This has been enormously damaging to those who receive dividends and the lack of tax credits has also undermined defined benefit pension funds. The taxation of dividends should revert to how it once was.
  7. The regulation of companies and financial institutions needs very substantial reform with much tougher laws against fraud on investors. Not only are the current laws weak but the enforcement of them by the FCA/FRC is too slow and ineffective. Although some reforms have recently been proposed, they do not go far enough. Individual directors and senior managers in companies are not held to account for gross errors or downright fraud, or when they are, they get off too lightly. We need a much more effective system like they have in the USA, and better laws.
  8. Shareholder rights as regards voting and the receipt of information have been undermined by the use of nominee accounts. This has made it difficult for individual shareholders to vote and that is one reason why investors have not been able to control the excesses in director pay recently. The system of shareholding and voting needs reform, with changes to the Companies Act to bring it into the modern electronic world.
  9. The pay of directors and senior managers in companies and other organisations has got wildly out of hand in recent years, thus generating a lot of criticism by the lower paid. This has created social divisions and led partly to the rise of extreme left socialist tendencies. This problem needs tackling.
  10. Governance of companies needs to be reformed to ensure that directors do not set their own pay, as happens at present, but that shareholders and other stakeholders do so. Likewise shareholders and other stakeholders should appoint the directors.
  11. Insolvency law needs reform to outlaw “pre-pack” administrations which have been very damaging to many small businesses. They are an abuse of insolvency law.
  12. All the EU Directives on financial regulation should be scrapped (i.e. there should be no “harmonization” with EU regulations after Brexit). The MIFID regulations have added enormous costs to financial institutions, which have passed on their costs to their customers, with no very obvious benefit to anyone. Likewise the Shareholder Rights Directive might have had good objectives but the implementation has been poor because of the lack of knowledge on how financial markets operate in the UK. Other examples are the UCITS regulations which have not stopped Neil Woodford from effectively bypassing them, or the PRIIPS regulations which have resulted in misleading information being provided to investors.

Let me know if you have other suggestions, and of course the above policies might be good for adoption by other political parties in addition.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Majestic Wine, Brexit, Proxy Voting and Inheritance Tax Simplification

Majestic Wine (WINE) issued their interim results yesterday (22/11/2018). I no longer hold the shares but I am a customer of theirs. The financial results were disappointing with adjusted earnings down 63% and reported profit turned into a loss from a £1.5 million profit in the previous half year. Their explanation is increased marketing expenditure particularly on Naked Wines. Revenue overall was up 5.4% but what is the point in generating more revenue at a loss? As a customer I seem to be receiving fewer marketing communications from the company. No pre-Christmas promotion so far for example. Does this explain part of their difficulty?

Their “adjustments” that enabled them to report adjusted profits are, shall we say, interesting. It includes an adjustment for “en primeur” orders where title has not passed to the customer as it has not even shipped from the supplier so cannot be recognised as a sale. They also throw in a whole mass of acquisition and restructuring costs in their adjustments.

Needless to say, they are burning cash at a great rate, including putting more into inventory (see below), so I am not convinced they have a sound strategy. The share price dropped on these results despite the announcement being full of positive comments about the future.

One might call this “reporting dissonance” where the fine phrases and positive comments about future prospects do not match the hard financial facts.

Brexit

One interesting comment in the Majestic results was that they are stockpiling wine above their normal levels “to mitigate any supply chain Brexit disruption in March 2019”. That should really annoy the chattering classes in London if their booze supplies are disrupted and they cannot obtain their favourite tipples.

But we do now have an expanded (7 pages to 26) publication explaining the proposed UK’s relationship with the EU after the Withdrawal Transition period. You can find it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/progress-on-the-uks-exit-from-and-future-relationship-with-the-european-union .

You’ve probably heard the phrase “gesture politics” which refers to how politicians make grandiose gestures with little real impact. This “Political Declaration” as it is called is surely one of the grandest of all gestures. It commits neither side to anything very specific although there are lots of fine words in there.

But it does cover some areas that I complained about in the Withdrawal Agreement. It’s the kind of political statement that is aimed to appeal to all sides of the political debate in the UK over Brexit plus EU bureaucrats and politicians. But it does not resolve clearly and unambiguously the issue of no border controls in Northern Ireland and our future trading relationship with the EU, or the Gibraltar issue that Spain is complaining about. Mrs May might just get where she wants to be at this rate, but whether she can do enough to win the support of the electorate, and even more importantly, the votes in Parliament, remains to be seen.

Proxy Voting

As a past shareholder in US companies, I always used to think their proxy voting system worked well. But apparently not according to an article in the FT this week. Under the headline “SEC urged to shake up proxy voting system” it reported that it was expensive, complex and prone to error. It actually took two months to calculate if a proxy vote on a board appointment at Procter & Gamble was won or lost. I was aware that the US system was prone to “over-voting” where more shares are voted that the company has in issue, but just as in the UK the turnout of retail investors in the vote is now very low at 29%. Companies, or people fighting a proxy battle, cannot get through to the end investors or beneficial owners and lending of shares by institutional investors also causes many shares not to be voted.

In summary the system is too complex and prone to error. The SEC is to undertake a review on how it could be improved. We surely need a similar initiative in the UK and the solution is a well-designed electronic system where every shareholder is on the register of a company, including those holding shares in nominee accounts.

Inheritance Tax

I mentioned in a previous article that the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) is looking at Inheritance Tax. They got a lot of submissions to their public consultation apparently and have now published a “first” report on the subject. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/office-of-tax-simplification-inheritance-tax-review . Here are some initial comments:

It is surprising to read that the average amount of tax paid, as a percentage of an estates value, increases up to the £2 million level and then levels off at about 20%. But if your estate is worth more than £8 million then the percentage decreases. In other words, the very wealthy pay less tax. These figures are explained by high levels of exempt transfers to spouses but particularly for the rich, the extensive use of reliefs. This is surely a case of the very wealthy employing clever tax advisors while the middle classes whose wealth can reside mainly in expensive houses find it more difficult to avoid. This just demonstrates that the tax is not exactly rational nor equitable.

The OTS received many negative comments about the complexity of IHT returns and these on the issue of Lifetime Gifts:

  • The various gift rules and exemptions can be complex and confusing and are not always well understood, especially those relating to the tapering of the tax rate for gifts given in the seven years before death.
  • The financial limits for the various exemptions have not kept pace with inflation (it being recognised that increases would have an Exchequer cost).
  • For many, it is difficult to either maintain or reconstruct records of lifetime Gifts.

The complexity of the Inheritance Tax forms that executors are expected to complete is acknowledged as an issue and the recommendation is that these should be replaced by a digital system. Pending such a system being implemented the current paper forms should be changed and the guidance that is provided simplified.

At present inheritance tax must be paid within 6 months but forms only need to be returned within 12 months. There is also the problem of having to pay the tax before the assets may have been realised. All the OTS says on these issues is that HMRC should explore potential solutions.

They also suggest some possible simplifications of the IHT regulations for Trusts. But in general this report only suggest relatively modest changes to the administration of estates rather than a proper simplification of this area of taxation. Perhaps there will be more in future reports.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Taxation of Trusts, LTIPs and Technology Stocks

The Government has announced a review of the Taxation of Trusts. You can read the consultation document and respond thereafter here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-of-taxation-of-trusts-a-review

It’s not about investment trusts, but all kinds of traditional trusts whose origin goes back hundreds of years and enables “settlors” to move assets into a trust and out of their personal wealth. There are a number of different reasons why trusts are created as the above document explains. The Government does not dispute that they have genuine uses but wishes to ensure that they are not used for tax avoidance. They also wish to try and simplify the taxation of trusts if possible.

One particular concern they have is about foreign resident trusts controlled by UK residents where they cannot necessarily see what is going on, i.e. they lack “transparency”.

I do have an interest as a settlor in a simple UK based family trust. These are not straightforward things to set up but as for many people it was created to try and move some assets out of the scope of inheritance tax. However, apart from the fact that you can retain some control of where the money goes as a trustee, you may almost as well just give your money to the beneficiaries directly. But you can include minors and unborn offspring as beneficiaries so there are some advantages in the trust form.

Taxation is paid on trust income and capital gains but in a somewhat different form to personal tax. I won’t even attempt to explain the differences here as it would take too long. You can be worse or better off than having it in a personal name, but it won’t be as tax free as ISAs or SIPPs. The major income tax benefits of trusts have long ago disappeared. But certainly one problem with trusts at present is that calculating tax and making tax returns is no simple task so trusts tend to be used by those who can afford professional assistance or have a trustee who can do the necessary work.

But the expense of preparing trust accounts and tax returns are deductible which does not apply to personal tax returns. They suggest this is unfair in that trusts are being favoured which I certainly would not agree with! Of course if the taxation of trusts was simplified so that any amateur could do the work, I might take a different view. But certainly dealing with trust accounts at present is not simple.

Indeed the whole area of trust creation and management is too complex but no doubt there are lots of professionals who make a good living out of advising on them so their consultation responses might be somewhat biased.

I have not yet gone through the document in detail and I’ll probably even need to take some advice on it before responding, but this consultation will be very important to some people.

Postscript: My submission to the HMRC Consultation is present here: https://www.roliscon.com/Taxation-of-Trusts-Roliscon-Response%20.pdf

LTIPs

The case of Persimmon and the value that departing CEO Jeff Fairburn obtained from their LTIP scheme continues to get a lot of media coverage. Best guess seems to be about £75 million, but there are similar every large sums of money to other executives and there could be millions also to each of more than 100 staff under the same scheme.

This comment in the FT’s LEX column this morning is very much apposite: “There are two lessons. First, UK boards should ditch LTIPs in favour of vanilla stock awards. LTIPs are too complicated, sometimes delivering fat payouts when investor returns are thin. Second, chief executives should avoid saying they have no responsibility for their own pay. No one believes them”.

Why did shareholders vote for the original LTIP at Persimmon? Probably because nobody anticipated what the scheme might pay out after the housing market became buoyant and the Government introduced the “Help-to-Buy” scheme. There was of course no cap imposed on the payout which should have been done. But LTIP schemes are so complex many shareholders can’t be bothered to read the details (as I found out talking to one investor at the recent Abcam AGM).

I very much agree that LTIPs would be best replaced by conventional share options.

I have never liked LTIPs for a number of reasons: 1) typically too complex with confusing targets rather than simple numeric ones; 2) they are too long term – incentive schemes need to pay out quickly if you want behaviour to be incentivised by them. Short term cash bonuses are simple to administer and have some merits but there was a demand a few years back to make remuneration relate to long-term performance as short-term schemes can create perverse incentives. Share options do at least align employee interests with that of shareholders.

One change that is also required to avoid executives determining their own pay is to take remuneration setting out of the control of directors and into the hands of shareholders, e.g. via a Shareholder Committee for which ShareSoc has been campaigning.

Technology Stocks Due a Revival?

Sophos (SOPH) shares tumbled yesterday. The cyber security group closed down 28% after a disappointing report about future revenues in a half-year statement. This was one of those UK stocks that reached very expensive valuations until about July since which it’s been heading south. Indeed that’s a common story among small cap technology stocks with many having fallen back sharply in the last few months. That’s despite the fact that many are still growing revenues and profits well above inflation, i.e. they are still growth stocks. Sophos did have a particular problem of comparability with previous year’s figures which were very buoyant after numerous cyber attack scares. The valuation of Sophos now appears more sensible and it would seem other folks also feel it is time to dip their toes back in the water because the share price rose. Or was that a “dead-cat” bounce today? But there do appear to be some buying opportunities appearing in this area, although nobody would say it’s not a high-risk field for investors. At least the valuations are not so daft as they were only a few weeks ago.

Note: I do hold both Persimmon and Sophos shares.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.