Law firms move to protect partner pay amid tax hikes
A number of law firms are considering putting profits into new business structures to mitigate the effects of increased income tax levels for partners. City accountants have recently experienced an increase in demand from law firms looking at setting up subsidiary service companies or introducing new ownership structures to the LLP.
October 13, 2010 at 06:26 AM
3 minute read
Firms using service companies to limit impact of income tax hikes
A number of law firms are considering putting profits into new business structures to mitigate the effects of increased income tax levels for partners.
City accountants have recently experienced an increase in demand from law firms looking at setting up subsidiary service companies or introducing new ownership structures to the LLP.
Both models allow firms to bypass the maximum 50% individual income tax rate for a portion of their profits in favour of 28% corporate tax rate.
An increasing number of law firms are considering establishing service companies alongside their main business through which they can re-route some profits, according to research by accountants Smith & Williamson.
The responses gathered from more than 100 law firms show 32% of respondents have completed or are in the process of setting up a service company, while 33% are considering it.
A further 11% of respondents have introduced or are in the process of bringing in a corporate member, whereby a limited company becomes a 'member' of the LLP and retains its own share of the firm profits. A third of respondent law firms are now considering this new model following the introduction of higher personal tax levels in April this year.
However, accountants have warned that the structures do not fit all firms since they add a significant complexity to the firm organisation in terms of regulatory implications, as well as additional auditing and accounting costs.
Smith & Williamson tax director Pam Sayers commented: "While it can significantly mitigate the effect of the higher tax rates, anti-avoidance legislation means that partnerships need to be wary of implications before taking decisions."
Simmons & Simmons managing partner Mark Dawkins (pictured) commenting: "As a firm we have stayed rather conservative when it comes to tax structures. Previously the hassle was not worth the benefits, but the 50% tax rate means that we have to look at our options."
George Bull, head of Baker Tilly's professional practice group, commented: "There are two main drivers behind the introduction of a corporate member or service company to an LLP – the higher tax rates, as well as the need to reduce reliance on bank finance which is no longer easily available."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCAT Dismisses Claim Because Class Rep Lacked ‘Understanding’ of Own Funding Arrangement
CMS Sheds 15 Real Estate Lawyers Following Second Redundancy Round in 18 Months
2 minute readFormer Dentons, Baker McKenzie Partners Join Hong Kong Boutique Linked to China's Yingke
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250