Family businesses—governance

Family constitution

Successful family businesses are different in many ways, but they have at least one thing in common; they are well organised. Their success is achieved through thoughtful planning and part of this organised approach often involves creating a family constitution. Other names that are used for ‘family constitution’ include family charter or family creed or family protocol.

Some family constitutions are intended by families to have moral, rather than legal force. However, the family constitution may contain provisions about ownership and other matters that the family want to be legally binding. In such cases, there is a need for some convergence between the family constitution and other forms of legal agreements.

Some families introduce sanctions for breach of a family constitution. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Family businesses—the family constitution.

Family governance

A family business that has no formal structures and policies in place does not completely lack governance. There is always a ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ governance system based on understandings, assumptions and expectations that everyone in the family and in the business adheres to as ‘the way we do things around here’.

Formal

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents