Hiding Property Ownership

[craig511]

Hi all,

Before I start, this isn't about tax avoidance or evasion. Quite happy to ay whatever tax I need to pay.

However this is about disguising who owns property.

I have my own UK LTD company. Myself ad wife are named directors. The company owns properties throughout the UK. So on the land registry each property is owned by my company, and a quick google turns up my company house details with my name and that of my wife.

I want to somehow change this, even going offshore if required to hide that ownership. I want no-one, including the government knowing who owns my properties. I don't mind them having details of a company in the BVI but not the beneficiaries.

How does one, highlevel, do this? For details do I need t speak to tax or wealth specialist?

Thanks.

[EddieSteadyGo]

craig511 said:

I want to somehow change this, even going offshore if required to hide that ownership. I want no-one, including the government knowing who owns my properties. I don't mind them having details of a company in the BVI but not the beneficiaries.

I have to start the thread saying I'm not an accountant or a particular expert in this field.

But I think there is a big problem with what you would like to do, assuming you don't want to break the law.

Have a look at FRS 102 section 33. It details what you need to disclose to the government regarding related entities. The objective of these rules as I understand it is to ensure you are obliged to declare exactly the type of interest in an overseas business that you describe.

[Vocal Minority]

craig511 said:

I want to somehow change this, even going offshore if required to hide that ownership. I want no-one, including the government knowing who owns my properties.

Why? Genuine question if you don't mind me asking.

It wouldn't bother me, so I'm just curious

[anonymous-user]

It will be expensive and will involve trusting people.

You'd need a really strong reason to have to do it.
And lots of money.

[stut4]

Vocal Minority said:

Why? Genuine question if you don't mind me asking.

It wouldn't bother me, so I'm just curious

only one reason i can think of - tax avoidance or evasion. i'm sure you're likely to raise more suspicion and investigations having an offshore company.

only way you could do it would be to set up a company abroad, put funds into the foreign company, then let the company buy it from your UK company. you'll then have all associated fees purchasing from yourself - stamp duty/legals, and then have the effort of taking money out of the UK company once the properties have sold.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Strange how 'avoidance' has become a dirty word even if perfectly lawful.

There was a court case centuries ago (I might have exaggerated), and the Judge basically said there is no obligation for the tax payer to structure their financial affairs so as to benefit the Exchequer.

Still holds true.

[EddieSteadyGo]

stut4 said:

only way you could do it would be to set up a company abroad, put funds into the foreign company, then let the company buy it from your UK company. you'll then have all associated fees purchasing from yourself - stamp duty/legals, and then have the effort of taking money out of the UK company once the properties have sold.

You are still obliged to declare the ownership to the government as per FRS102 I mentioned earlier, even if you organised the finances in the way you describe.

[craig511]

thanks all.

As above its not for tax, quite happy for whatever arrangement to be fully open in terms of tax, but I don't want nosey neighbours or councils knowing who individually owns my properties. Company name is fine and accounts are fine, but not the person.

Possible cheaply?

[stongle]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Strange how 'avoidance' has become a dirty word even if perfectly lawful.

There was a court case centuries ago (I might have exaggerated), and the Judge basically said there is no obligation for the tax payer to structure their financial affairs so as to benefit the Exchequer.

Still holds true.

Yes, very few can distinguish between avoidance and evasion (although I think mitigation is better than avoidance these days). The later will at some-point involve reaching for the soap.

Whilst the former is perfectly legal, it becomes like crack to the firms doing it and those selling the services of it. They only stop when they've gone far to far legally or reputational.

Anyhoo, difficult to understand why you'd want to do this unless messy estate probate coming up. You'd need a vehicle with multiple compartments / SPVs within it, each potentially owning interests in another jurisdiction (so your BVI vehicle owns shs in a Cayman / Delaware / IoM etc company with the property in it). Its going to be expensive. This wouldn't be uncommon for structured finance trades and securitisation.

[anonymous-user]

craig511 said:

thanks all.

As above its not for tax, quite happy for whatever arrangement to be fully open in terms of tax, but I don't want nosey neighbours or councils knowing who individually owns my properties. Company name is fine and accounts are fine, but not the person.

Possible cheaply?

You can have a service address listed at companies house.
Anything else is going to cost.

[Eric Mc]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Strange how 'avoidance' has become a dirty word even if perfectly lawful.

There was a court case centuries ago (I might have exaggerated), and the Judge basically said there is no obligation for the tax payer to structure their financial affairs so as to benefit the Exchequer.

Still holds true.

"Avoidance" from a tax point of view is lawful in that you won't go to jail if it is found you have avoided tax "legally". However, HMRC may conclude that the avoidance technique you have used does not work and will demand that you pay to them the tax you SHOULD have paid if you hadn't used the avoidance scheme. They will also add penalties to the amount due and interest on both the tax and penalties.


So, even if the scheme was "legal", it can still come back and bite you big time.

The two questions that need to be asked of the OP is, from whom would the ownership of the property be hid and why?

[paulrockliffe]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Strange how 'avoidance' has become a dirty word even if perfectly lawful.

There was a court case centuries ago (I might have exaggerated), and the Judge basically said there is no obligation for the tax payer to structure their financial affairs so as to benefit the Exchequer.

Still holds true.

Except it isn't true in the strictest sense.

If the purpose behind the structure is solely to avoid tax then it is tax avoidance. Obviously it's not straightforward to know what a person's purpose is, especially where there are other benefits in the structure, so it's difficult to enforce on that basis. But if there is no other benefit then it can be inferred sufficiently well that the purpose of the structure is to avoid tax and it fails.

In this case there isn't a lawful ownership structure that obviates the requirement to pay tax in the UK on income derived from property that is in the UK, bizarre structures are only there to obfuscate and hide the income.

There are also potential additional taxes on property income where the ownership is either a limited company or non-UK tax resident.

[Funk]

desolate said:

craig511 said:

thanks all.

As above its not for tax, quite happy for whatever arrangement to be fully open in terms of tax, but I don't want nosey neighbours or councils knowing who individually owns my properties. Company name is fine and accounts are fine, but not the person.

Possible cheaply?

You can have a service address listed at companies house.
Anything else is going to cost.

It'll also still show previous home address on any past filings as well though and his name (and wife's) will still be listed as dirs (or PwSC) at CH... Not sure you could link the actual properties to the ltd co through CH at all though?

[Behemoth]

One legitimate reason I can think of is security. If the business incurs danger to self for some reason (I dunno, debt chasing ne'er-do-wells) and your name isn't Joe Smith, then perhaps obscuring it in some way might be warranted.

[anonymous-user]

Funk said:

It'll also still show previous home address on any past filings as well though and his name (and wife's) will still be listed as dirs (or PwSC) at CH... Not sure you could link the actual properties to the ltd co through CH at all though?

The Company would be listed on the land registry as the owner.

[Funk]

Behemoth said:

One legitimate reason I can think of is security. If the business incurs danger to self for some reason (I dunno, debt chasing ne'er-do-wells) and your name isn't Joe Smith, then perhaps obscuring it in some way might be warranted.

You can apply to have the home address details of company officers contained on historic documents suppressed on the public record at Companies House via section 1088 of the Companies Act 2006 but this has to be granted with good reason (as you mention, a potential security risk or threat to life etc would be feasible, simply 'not wanting your name on it' probably wouldn't).

desolate said:

Funk said:

It'll also still show previous home address on any past filings as well though and his name (and wife's) will still be listed as dirs (or PwSC) at CH... Not sure you could link the actual properties to the ltd co through CH at all though?

The Company would be listed on the land registry as the owner.

Good point.

[craig511]

its removing our names is all I'm really after. Going offshore seems excessive for sure but if its a viable option then I may consider it. However as above there are lots of costs involved then this will be a non starter. In fact probably cheaper moving out of my home into a new one and as above putting my address down on some PO box or similar.

And, on to another point which has nothing to do with the above but came to mind.

If these offshore companies own property and the individuals cant be traced, what happens when it comes to planning enforcement? If the owner builds a great big extension and is told to pay a fine but doesn't pay it, what recourse could the council or even the courts have when the person who actually owns it all cant be traced. Ok so fine the company, but its offshore. Cant take a company to prison.

[anonymous-user]

You have to declare your ownership of any offshore company anyway (to HMRC)

To transfer to the offshore company you would have to pay any SDLT and CGT.

If enforcement was that serious they would eventually come and knock it down.

[craig511]

thinking more about those actions that would only attract a fine, like change of use etc.

[anonymous-user]

craig511 said:

thinking more about those actions that would only attract a fine, like change of use etc.

In the end of you didn't respond I would think they could take the property off the company and sell it to pay the fines.