09 Mar 2015

A question about : Offshore Investment Bonds (when, why, for whom)

I have been told by pm that it is a surprise that such a bond was advised (all those years ago) to me a non tax payer.
The sugestion is that it is only of benefit to higher rate tax payers.
An on-shore bond has some (company / corporatuion / other?) tax taken (/ used /offset) which cannot be reclaimed by a UK resident.
I am unclear why only a higher rate tax payer ? Is it not also lost to anyone who cannot reclaim it ?
This wont help me, but may be of interest to our chum Perdu or others.
(or I may come to consider these things again in the future title=Smile ) (being as I soon will have more dosh to invest and will have more income as well )

I thort I'd better start a new thread on this subject cos I can feel a thousand knives aimed at the back of my head for curtailing the other one title=ROTFL
No doubt some bright spark will show there is already a thread > over there >

Best answers:

  • http://investment-bond-shop.co.uk/in...tax-treatment/
    might be worth a look.
  • Someone help me please.
    If HSBC help people to avoid tax it is tax avoidance and must not be allowed.
    If someone asks on MSE how to avoid tax it's ok to help your mates.
    Same measure? Two measures? You decide.
  • I knew it !
    Oh dear, there has always got to be one !!
    go look up "tax avoidance vs tax evasion"
    Dont listen to the news media !
    Is a tax free ISA an avoidance or an evasion. You decide.
    and maybe start a thread on that subject ?
  • Thanks again, appreciated.
    >>If you take an amount out above the 5% amounts it causes a chargeable event,
    >>which will factor back in all the 5% tax-deferred withdrawals.
    Factor back in ??
    5% x Yyears (to a max of Y=20y ** ) so no tax liability ?
    So each year you take 1yearsworth of 5% plus any preceeding unused years worth ?
    And in 1 or more years you take extra (and maybe pay tax if it exceeds your p.allowance)
    which will then reduce the size of any tax liable gain on surrender.
    Edit In other words :
    dont we need to first deal with the unclaimable company tax of an onshore account to a UK resident post#1
    then deal with the tax liable gain above 20 x 5%
    and if it should be brought back all in one year (surrender)
    or part taken each year in free p.allowance sized chunks until that which remains in the year of surrender is also less than the remaining p.allowance.
    then consider segmentation ?
    ** Perhaps we are getting xporpoise on that 20y thing ?
    example :
    In year 15 you can only take 15 x 5% without liability and without generating a CEvent
    But you may take more, which is liable for tax, will generate a CE, but tax may(will) not be due if it is within your p.allowance still.
    In year 17 you may take 2 x 5% with no liability and no CE
    In year 18 you may take 1 x 5% with no liability plus some more which will be liable, and cause another CE, but will not be tax due if it also is within your p.allowance.
    Then in year 22 you surrender and the remaining 2 x 5% is not liable but anything above that is a gain and is liable.
    That is only an example, not what I have done nor proposing to do,
    just an example to see if /where wrong assumptions may be made, or areas of pitfalls may lay elephant traps ( to use a S.Fry-ism ) !
    I have been editing and re-editing to try to make what I mean more readable and make more sense till it is 1:40 am , that's the best I can do so I'm off to bed !
    G'night all.
  • Well I have been thinking more about Aegis > "factor back in "
    and reading loads more and getting thoroughly confused with the terminology
    When I previously said
    " or part taken each year in free p.allowance sized chunks until that which remains in the year of surrender is also less than the remaining p.allowance. "
    may be untrue ?
    Whilst they (the 'chunks') may have been within the p.a. in the year received and not generating any tax to be paid at that time
    they are all totalled up upon surrender and then all become income from gain in that final year and thus if the total is above the p.a. for that final year then tax will be payable ?
    Sounds odd to me but
    Is that what Aegis means by factored back in ?
    So in other words there is no point to taking some of the gain in intervening years ?
    My head hurts.