³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

Offshore funds, life policies and pensions

Offshore bonds and other foreign policies

The term offshore bond usually refers to a life insurance policy taken out:

  1. •

    with a non-UK life insurance company, such as one based in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man; and/or

  2. •

    when the individual was overseas

However, the rules are complex and the treatment of foreign life policies depends on a number of factors, including the date the policy was taken out and whether there were subsequent variations.

For tax purposes, offshore policies will usually be non-qualifying foreign policies. If a policy is a qualifying policy, most profits thereon will not be taxable in the hands of the policyholder. See Practice Note: Offshore bonds and other foreign policies—Qualifying policies.

Offshore policies are commonly used for tax and wealth planning purposes, as the premium is used partly to buy insurance on the life of an individual, and partly for investment by the insurance company. This is in contrast to term insurance, where the premium is used to buy only life insurance.

Offshore policies may be 'with profits' policies or investment-linked. Where a policy is 'with

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Taxpayer wins UK Privy Council CARICOM Tax Treaty case (Methanex Trinidad v Board of Inland Revenue)

Private Client analysis: In Methanex, the Privy Council considered two main issues. First, were dividends paid by Methanex Trinidad to its sole shareholder in Barbados ‘artificial or fictitious’? The tax authority argued that the dividends were artificial and fictitious because subsequent dividends were paid up the corporate chain to the ultimate parent in Canada. Overturning the lower courts, the Privy Council held that the dividends were neither artificial (abnormal) nor fictitious (a sham), as the dividends were the only legal means to distribute profits up the corporate chain, and it was commercially commonplace for national and international groups to distribute profits precisely as was done in this case. The second issue was whether the Barbados shareholder, an International Business Company (IBC), was ‘liable to tax’ in Barbados and therefore properly resident in Barbados for purposes of the CARICOM Tax Treaty. The tax authority argued that the Barbados shareholder was not ‘liable to tax’ in Barbados for various reasons revolving mainly around the company’s status as an IBC, which afforded it a lower rate of tax. The Privy Council held that the Barbados shareholder was ‘liable to tax’ because, as a resident of Barbados, it was liable to pay tax on its worldwide income in Barbados. The fact that Barbados chose to impose a preferential tax rate was irrelevant. Written by David Wilson, partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP (Montreal, Canada).

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents