The £7 billion tax bill faced by the family behind Samsung has rung alarm bells even beyond South Korea, writes Arun Kakar

FOR THE LEE DYNASTY, 2021 did not get off to a good start. Following the passing of Samsung chairman Lee Kun-hee at the end of 2020, and with the de facto head of the clan heading to prison, the family was faced with an inheritance tax bill of 12 trillion Korean won – more than £7 billion. In April it was announced that the Lees would donate 23,000 artworks worth around £1.3 billion to South Korean museums in order to help foot one of the largest inheritance tax bills in history, which is ‘equivalent to three to four times the Korean government’s total estate tax revenue last year’, as the family made painfully clear in a statement. South Korea’s inheritance tax rates are among the most stringent in the world. The state levies a tax of 50 per cent of the value of assets, which rises to 60 per cent for company shares – well above the 40 per cent rate in the US and UK. Not only is the rate higher, but the constraints are tougher, too. Under Korean tax law, certain exemptions and reliefs are available to small and medium-sized firms, notes Kelly Greig, head of tax at Paris Smith. But clearly these do not apply to Samsung. The system is more punitive still. ‘As well as the high tax rate, the family can only spread the cost of the tax over five years. Other nations have adopted a more generous approach of ten years of instalments for certain assets,’ says Greig. ‘This has seen the family have to borrow money at high interest rates in order to meet the liability.’ Adding another dimension to the affair was the fact that Kun-hee’s son and Samsung vice-chair Lee Jae-yong was in prison at the time of the family’s announcement, serving a two-and-a-half-year sentence for bribery, embezzlement and concealment. In January Jae-yong, who became de facto head of the conglomerate in 2014 after his father suffered a heart attack, was found by a court

The reputation of the chaebols is suffering in South Korea, where they are sometimes viewed as exemplars of unfair business practice and stifling of competition. President Moon Jae-in, who was re-elected comfortably last year, first took office in 2017 with a pledge to rein in the conglomerates, and last December he passed a bill to make it harder for the largest shareholders to appoint auditors and to increase scrutiny on dealings with affiliates. Samsung, South Korea’s largest chaebol (it accounts for a stunning 20 per cent of the country’s economy), is also a touchpoint for the intersection between reputation and taxation issues faced by wealthy families outside South Korea. ‘In the Samsung case I am sure the

to have ‘actively provided bribes and implicitly asked the president to use her power to help his smooth succession’. In August he was released early. The drama has shone a light on the

‘chaebols’, South Korean family-run conglomerates that also include the likes of Hyundai and SK Group. Owned, controlled and managed by family dynasties, chaebols emerged in the mid-20th century during President Park Chung-hee’s rapid industrialisation programme, which spurred South Korea’s development from a predominantly agrarian economy into one of the world’s leading manufacturers of cars, telecoms and electronics. More than 40 chaebols are active today,

collectively representing around half of South Korea’s stock market. According to the Council of Foreign Relations, an American think tank, Chaebols enjoy a ‘symbiotic’ relationship to government, an aspect of their existence that was placed on full display during Lee Jae-yong’s trial.

family’s recent reputational concerns were a consideration in having a high-profile public display of philanthropy,’ says Marcus Parker, a tax partner at Harbottle & Lewis, who notes an ‘ever growing desire’ in wealthy families to be engaged in philanthropy: ‘Reputation management is a key part of estate planning, and the payment or otherwise of tax is now a crucial issue to consider when planning the affairs of wealthy families.’ The Samsung affair arrives at a pivotal moment. In May, the OECD argued that inheritance taxes could be ‘an important instrument to address inequality’ in the current context of new, coronavirus-induced pressures faced by public finances. And a global minimum corporation tax has already been agreed by G7 governments (see p30).

‘If people can do that with corporation tax, governments might look at the receipts generated and might ask if it’s possible to do something similar with inheritance tax,’ says Jonathan Riley, head of private wealth at Fladgate. ‘It must be interesting to governments to realise that a receipt of £7 billion can make a massive difference.’ S


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100