Share incentives

Share incentives

This subtopic is intended as an introduction to employee share incentive schemes for Private Client practitioners. Share schemes and incentives specialist lawyers will often be instructed by a company to give substantive advice in this area, but it is important for Private Client lawyers to understand the basics.

Introduction to employee share ownership schemes

Employee share ownership typically happens in one of the following scenarios:

•
business succession or ownership succession—private owners, such as an entrepreneur or family business, decide to sell all (more usually, part) of their shareholdings to their workforce
•
insolvency or closure threat—employee buyouts can prove an effective route to recovery for businesses that might otherwise fail
•
independence—companies may decide that a significant and even majority employee stakeholding will demonstrate and help protect the company's independence
•
privatisation—the privatisation of various companies have provided occasional opportunities for employee buyouts, and
•
owner vision—as in the case of John Lewis, Arup Group or Scott Bader, at the outset of the business or later on, the founder of a business opts for employee ownership

There are many ways in which share ownership schemes

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—22 May 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Law Commission publishes its recommendations to reform the Wills Act 1837; (2) Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z, in which the court granted a parental order despite applicants’ advanced ages; (3) HMRC issues first individual tax avoidance stop notices under POTAS regime; (4) further analysis of Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC, in which the court confirmed when a settlement is ‘made’ for the purposes of excluded property; (5) Louwman v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, a decision of the FTT holding that OIGs and AIPs arising in offshore protected trusts are not protected foreign source income; (6) Moran v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the taxpayer was found liable under the transfer of assets abroad regime for the rent-free occupation of a house; and (7) the Data (Use and Access) Bill reaches its final legislative stages.

HMCTS publishes blog post announcing probate guidance podcast

HMCTS has published a blog post announcing a new podcast episode about probate application procedures. The blog introduces the episode featuring HMCTS experts discussing both online and paper-based probate applications, covering application requirements, common errors, and processing timelines. This forms part of HMCTS's ongoing efforts to provide accessible information about court processes.

Question of the week: If the sole trustee of a trust appoints an additional trustee to sell trust property, in order to overreach the beneficial interest in the property, do the beneficiaries of the trust have the right to receive information about the identity of the additional trustee?

This Q&A considers whether a beneficiary of a trust has a right to receive information, on request, about the identity of the trustees.

All in? Court confirms when a settlement is 'made' for the purposes of excluded property (Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC)

Private Client analysis: This case considered the meaning of 'relevant property' under the settlements regime of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and, in particular, the time at which this definition is to be tested. The question arose as to whether the trustees of an offshore trust established by a non-UK domiciled settlor were subject to the UK settlements regime in respect of property added to the trust after the settlor became deemed domiciled in the UK, or whether they were exempt from such charges as the trust consisted solely of excluded property. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that whether trust property is excluded property is based on the status of the trust at the time that it was established, not at the time that the property in question was added to the settlement. As a result, the trust in this case did consist solely of excluded property and no inheritance tax (IHT) charges arose as a result of either the ten-year anniversary or capital distributions. The FTT was also asked to consider whether their jurisdiction was appellate, or supervisory only. The FTT held that, while their jurisdiction was supervisory, the questions raised by the trustees were relevant in establishing whether HMRC had acted reasonably and that the outcome (ie that the paid IHT should be refunded and that no further IHT was due) would be the same in either case. Written by Katherine Willmott, senior associate solicitor at Foot Anstey LLP.