FT: Ken Clarke stock sale beats CGT rise

Ken Clarke stock sale beats CGT rise

By John Willman, Business Editor

Financial Times Published: March 7 2008 22:10

Ken Clarke, the former Tory chancellor, has sold all his shares in British American Tobacco eight weeks before stepping down from the company¹s board, ahead of the 80 per cent increase in capital gains tax that comes into force on April 6.

The sale of 4,779 shares at £18.41 netted Mr Clarke, a non-executive director of the company since April 1998, almost £88,000 before costs. It will have saved several thousand pounds in tax, since most of the shares were acquired before January 2000 when BAT shares were below £6.50 and often much cheaper.

Mr Clarke, who cited estate and tax planning as reasons for the sale, has joined a growing band of directors and entrepreneurs disposing of business assets before the end of the tax year, when the minimum CGT rate will rise from 10 per cent to 18 per cent.

Many of the directors who have sold shares in their companies to lock in the lower tax rate want to continue owning them, and some have said they intend to buy them back after the 30 days¹ delay required by HM Revenue & Customs for the sale to count as a disposal for tax purposes.

However, many have held back from these so-called ³bed and breakfast² deals, said Kevin Nicholson of PwC, the professional services firm, because of uncertainty over the rules governing sales of shares in listed companies by directors.

³We¹re getting a lot of enquiries from directors about regulatory issues around selling shares ­ about when closed periods prevent it and which shares can be sold,² he said.

The number of such deals by directors is likely to grow in the run-up to the financial year-end, following publication of new guidance for listed companies from the Financial Services Authority, which says they are permissible under certain conditions.

To avoid falling foul of the rules on insider dealing by directors, such sales can be approved only if the repurchase arrangements are fixed at the same time to avoid giving the impression that they are speculative.

Sales should not be carried out during the periods when directors cannot deal in the company shares, even though they are purely for tax purposes. Companies should consider announcing the sales are for CGT purposes when informing the stock market, the FSA said. This would avoid misleading investors.

formatting link

Reply to
Papadillos
Loading thread data ...

a) Why is this news?

b) why is it interesting here?

What a private individual does, in reaction to a taxation change that is disadvantageous to him, made by a political party that he has no connection to, is of no concern to the rest of the world.

tim

Reply to
tim (not at home)

Quite. What's more, the "80% increase in CGT" referred to in the article simply does not exist, except for a limited and relatively improbable set of circumstances.

The 10% rate only applies to those people whose other taxable income is below their personal allowance (or exceeds it by less than about £2k), and then only to a maximum of about £2k worth of gains. Everyone else pays CGT at 20% or 40%, so the change to 18% represents a drop.

For those who would have had maximum taper relief, which is now to be abolished, the effective rate does admittedly represent an increase, from 12% (60% of 20%) to 18% for "normal" taxpayers, but for higher rate taxpayers it represents a drop from 24% (60% of 40%) to 18%.

So KC would have been better off waiting until after 5th April to realise his gain, given that he is almost certainly a HRTP, and so all his (indexed) gain now would be taxed at least at 24%, whereas next month his (unindexed) gain would be taxed at only 18%.

One can only assume that in his case the abolition of indexation allowance makes the difference.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

"Business asset" rules? He was a director... [ ... increase from 10% (25% of 40%) to 18%...]

Reply to
Tim

He wasn't selling business assets. He was selling shares in the company. Surely shares in a company don't magically become business assets simply because you happen to be a director.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Don't they? :-

formatting link
"WHAT IS A BUSINESS ASSET? ... If you are an individual the following are also business assets: ... shares or securities in a company which is a qualifying company by reference to you.

...

WHAT IS A QUALIFYING COMPANY? ... From 6 April 2000 ... a company is a qualifying company where it is a trading company or the holding company of a trading group and any of the following are met: ... you or an eligible beneficiary are an officer or employee of the company..."

Reply to
Tim

Bloody hell! An old boy's clause if ever I saw one. That *cannot* be within the spirit of the rules which seek to distinguish between business adn non-business assets!

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

Ah yes, my farmer friend's definition of politicians - only interested in feathering their own nests, or sleeping in someone else's...

Reply to
GSV Three Minds in a Can

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.