If you have heard the phrase "family investment company" and want to know whether it is something your family should look at, the answer turns on three things. How big is the portfolio you are planning around, who are you trying to pass wealth to, and how long is your horizon. The structure works for a narrow band of UK families and is consistently oversold to everyone else. This page is the entry-level walkthrough: what an FIC actually is, who genuinely uses one, what it costs, what the headline tax effects are, and where to read next if you want to go deeper.

A family investment company is a UK private limited company under the Companies Act 2006, holding investment assets, with bespoke articles of association that separate control from economic entitlement via multiple share classes. The Companies Act does not recognise FIC as a special category; FIC is a label the tax and trust community attaches to a private limited company set up with particular structuring choices. Companies House sees a company; HMRC sees a corporation-tax payer; the difference between an FIC and a conventional buy-to-let SPV is what the articles say and who holds which shares, not what is on the certificate of incorporation.

What Is a Family Investment Company in One Paragraph?

An FIC is a private limited company. The founder, usually a parent or parents, transfers cash and sometimes property into the company in return for shares and (often) a director's loan account. The company holds investment assets, typically a portfolio of rental property, shares, and cash. The share register carries multiple classes: voting shares held by the founder, dividend-bearing or growth shares held by children (directly, or via a trust), and sometimes preference shares for the founder's spouse. The articles of association lock in the founder's reserved matters, dividend policy, and pre-emption rights on transfer. The company pays corporation tax on its profits; the shareholders take dividends or other extractions; growth above the founder's freezer share value accrues to the next generation outside the founder's IHT estate.

The word "family" describes the typical shareholder set, not a statutory category. There is no FIC tax regime, no FIC registration, no FIC return. The FIC is taxed as a close company under the corporation tax rules at CTA 2009 and CTA 2010, subject to the close-investment-holding-company test at CTA 2010 s.18N (covered below).

Who Actually Uses One?

FICs are not a mass-market product. The typical user has three things in common.

A portfolio of at least two million pounds. Below this rough threshold, the setup and ongoing running costs of an FIC are disproportionate to the tax saving and estate-planning benefit. Most cost models suggest the FIC route starts breaking even around the two-to-three-million-pound mark and becomes meaningfully attractive at five million plus. Lower-value portfolios are usually better served by direct ownership, a simple buy-to-let SPV, or an off-the-shelf trust.

A multi-generational wealth-transfer objective. The economics of an FIC depend on the founder retaining the structure for at least a decade, in most cases through to death, with growth accruing to the next generation in the interim. A founder who plans to sell the portfolio and spend the proceeds within a few years would pay incorporation costs without benefit. The structure suits families who want their wealth to outlive them.

A governance-capable family. An FIC is a real company. Board meetings happen, minutes get written, resolutions get passed, accounts get filed, and Companies House gets updated. A family that finds the discipline of a small business uncomfortable will struggle with the discipline of an FIC. The structure rewards families with one or two adult children willing to engage with the responsibilities of ownership.

For deeper treatment of the suitability question (is it worth it for me, given my numbers), see our FIC decision pillar, which is the next page after this one in the natural reading order.

What Does It Cost to Set Up and Run?

The honest answer is a wider range than most websites quote. Setup costs sit in the low five figures for a typical family with one founder, one spouse, two adult children, an existing buy-to-let portfolio of moderate size, and standard articles. The cost covers: tax advisory on the optimal structure (often a CTA-qualified specialist working alongside the family solicitor); legal advice and articles drafting (the articles are bespoke; off-the-shelf will not do); shareholder agreement drafting; company formation; CGT modelling on any property transferred in; SDLT modelling; any associated trust drafting if children's shares are held via a discretionary or bare trust; and the funding paperwork that puts cash and assets into the FIC.

Ongoing annual costs sit in a similar broad bracket, depending on complexity. The cost covers: statutory accounts; corporation tax computation and return; Companies House confirmation statement and any change-of-particulars filings; board governance support (minutes, resolutions, agenda preparation); dividend declaration and witness; ongoing tax-planning review; and any year-end strategy work on the freezer-and-growth share design. Where the family has a discretionary trust holding the growth shares, the trustees have additional duties (trust accounts, trust register entry under MLR 2017, trust tax returns) that add cost.

Cheaper packages exist. The compromise is usually in articles drafting and in the depth of post-incorporation governance. The articles are the engine of the FIC; cutting cost there to save in year one frequently costs many times more in year ten when the family wants to do something the articles forbid.

What Are the Headline Tax Effects?

The tax effects break into four headlines.

Corporation tax on rental profits, not income tax. Rental profits sit within the FIC at corporation tax rates: 19 percent on profits up to £50,000, 25 percent on profits above £250,000, and a marginal band in between. The Section 24 finance-cost restriction that affects individual buy-to-let landlords does not bite within a company. For higher-rate and additional-rate individual landlords, the corporation tax route can be materially cheaper at the profit-retention level; the differential narrows or reverses once profits are extracted as dividends.

Dividend extraction is taxed in shareholders' hands. Dividends from the FIC carry tax at 10.75 percent (basic-rate band), 35.75 percent (higher-rate band), and 39.35 percent (additional-rate band), with a £500 dividend allowance per shareholder per tax year. The dividend stack means that a shareholder taking dividends to live on faces a combined corporation-tax-then-dividend-tax burden that may rival or exceed income tax on direct rental. The retention advantage of the FIC therefore depends on profits being reinvested or extracted via more tax-efficient routes (DLA repayment, freezer-share redemption, capital extraction on liquidation) rather than as annual dividends to the founder.

Director's loan account credit balances are repayable tax-free until exhausted. The founder who transfers cash or property to the FIC typically does so on loan account. The credit balance can be repaid tax-free over many years, providing a long-running income-tax-free extraction route alongside dividends. Where a shareholder draws beyond the DLA balance and the account goes overdrawn, Section 455 of CTA 2010 charges the company 35.75 percent on the overdrawn balance nine months after the year-end, for loans made on or after 6 April 2026. The charge is refundable when the loan is repaid.

No Business Property Relief on the founder's death, and no Section 165 holdover on share gifts. An investment FIC fails the BPR test for the reasons set out in Pawson v HMRC [2013] UKUT 050 (TCC): the underlying activity is mainly the holding of investments, not a relievable business. The FIC shares therefore form part of the founder's IHT estate at death. Section 165 holdover relief is not available for gifts of investment-FIC shares because TCGA 1992 Sch 7 restricts holdover to trading-company shares, so CGT crystallises at market value when the founder gifts growth shares to the children. The minority-discount valuation of growth shares mitigates the CGT charge but does not eliminate it.

Is an FIC the Same as a Trust?

No. An FIC is a company; a trust is a separate legal arrangement where trustees hold assets for beneficiaries. The differences matter for tax.

A trust is taxed under its own regime: relevant property regime for most discretionary trusts (entry charge on settlement above the NRB, ten-year periodic charges, exit charges); income tax on trustees at the trust rate; CGT on trustees at the trust rate; with s.260 holdover relief available on transfers in to a relevant property trust (a major mechanic the FIC route lacks). An FIC pays corporation tax on its profits, no entry charge on the founder's transfers in (although CGT and SDLT crystallise), and no periodic charges, although the founder's shares stay within the founder's IHT estate.

The two structures can be combined. A discretionary trust can hold the growth-share class of an FIC, blending the asset-protection and IHT-shelter properties of the trust with the corporation-tax efficiency of the company. The combined structure adds cost and complexity but suits some family circumstances. Our FIC versus discretionary trust comparison goes through the four-axis decision (income-tax attribution, entry-tax cost, ongoing-charge profile, governance flexibility) in detail.

Does the FIC Qualify for Business Property Relief?

For a passive residential-letting FIC, no. The Upper Tribunal in Pawson v HMRC [2013] UKUT 050 (TCC) held that the holiday-letting business in question was mainly an investment business and was caught by IHTA 1984 s.105(3), which excludes a business that consists wholly or mainly of making or holding investments from BPR. Subsequent cases (Ross, PRs of Vigne, Cox) have refined the line but have not overturned it: a residential-let FIC, where the income is essentially rent and the activity is essentially property management, fails the relief.

This is one of the most common areas of competitor-website drift. Older marketing material (and some current adviser-promoted content) implies that the corporate wrapper somehow unlocks BPR. It does not. The relief looks through to the activity, not the wrapper. Our FIC IHT BPR myth page deep-dives the Pawson trajectory and the limited circumstances where a property-holding company might qualify for BPR (typically only where there is a genuine trading element such as a furnished holiday-let business pre-FA-2025, an extensive serviced-accommodation operation with substantial active services, or a development trading entity).

Will I Pay CGT When I Transfer Properties Into the FIC?

Yes, in most cases. TCGA 1992 s.17 treats the transfer to a connected company as a disposal at market value, regardless of any actual consideration. The capital gain accrues to the founder. For a long-held buy-to-let, the gain can be substantial. CGT becomes payable in the tax year of the transfer, with the 60-day reporting and payment-on-account regime under FA 2019 Sch 2.

Section 162 incorporation relief can defer the gain where the transferred portfolio is a business under the Ramsay v HMRC [2013] UKUT 226 (TCC) test. The Ramsay business test asks whether the activity is genuinely a business in nature, scale, and time devoted: a passive few-property buy-to-let usually fails the test; a substantial portfolio with active hands-on management may pass it. Where s.162 applies, the gain rolls into the base cost of the FIC shares received and is deferred until the founder disposes of those shares.

SDLT applies separately on the property transfer itself, at standard residential rates plus the additional-dwellings five percent surcharge under FA 2003 Sch 4ZA. The MDR relief that used to mitigate bulk transfers was abolished from 1 June 2024 (FA(No.2) 2024 s.7), making bulk-incorporation SDLT notably more expensive than under the pre-abolition regime.

Want this checked against your specific situation?

Drop your email and a one-line summary. We reply within 24 hours, no phone call needed.

Can I Gift FIC Shares to My Children?

Yes, and this is the core IHT-planning mechanism. The founder gifts growth shares to the children (or to a discretionary trust for the children) so that future growth in the FIC's value accrues outside the founder's estate. The gift is a potentially exempt transfer (PET), fully exempt if the founder survives seven years; tapered relief from year three to year seven; and within the founder's IHT estate if death occurs in year zero to three.

The CGT position is harder than for a trading-company share gift. TCGA 1992 s.165 holdover relief is available for gifts of trading-company shares but not for gifts of investment-company shares: Sch 7 to TCGA 1992 restricts holdover by reference to the trading-versus-investment distinction. An investment-FIC growth-share gift is therefore a CGT disposal at market value with no holdover available.

Growth-share design mitigates the CGT bite by ensuring the gifted shares have a low initial market value. The freezer shares held by the founder carry the value of the FIC at the date of the share-class restructure; the growth shares newly issued to the children carry only the right to participate in future growth above a hurdle. Independent valuation at the gift date typically supports a substantial minority discount and restricted-rights discount, materially lowering the chargeable gain. Our growth and freezer shares design page covers the architecture, and gifting shares to children covers the seven-year PET mechanics in detail.

What Is Close Investment-Holding Company Status, and Is It a Problem?

CTA 2010 s.18N denies the corporation tax small-profits rate (currently 19 percent on profits up to £50,000) to a close investment-holding company (CIHC). A CIHC is a close company that does not exist wholly or mainly for one of the permitted purposes listed in s.18N(2). A CIHC is taxed at the main rate of 25 percent on all profits, regardless of size.

The carve-out at s.18N(2)(b) preserves the small-profits rate for a company whose business consists wholly or mainly of making investments in land for letting to persons other than connected persons on a commercial basis. Most ordinary buy-to-let FICs (residential lettings to unconnected tenants) fall within this carve-out and retain access to the small-profits rate, paying 19 percent on the first £50,000 of profit.

The carve-out fails where the FIC predominantly holds shares, cash, intangible investments, or property let to connected family members. A family member living rent-free in an FIC property, or a directly-controlled tenant company, can tip the company into CIHC territory and lose the small-profits rate. The position deserves a sense-check at incorporation and after any material change in the FIC's asset mix.

Companies House Identity Verification and the ECCTA 2023 Reforms

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA), in force from 18 November 2025 for new appointments, makes identity verification at Companies House a legal requirement for every director and Person with Significant Control of a UK company. The verification happens once per individual, either through the free GOV.UK One Login route or through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP, typically a UK accountancy or legal firm) using the MLR 2017 anti-money-laundering regime. Each individual is issued a personal identification number that links them to every UK entity they are involved with.

For new FIC directors and PSCs appointed on or after 18 November 2025, identity verification must be completed before the appointment can be lodged at Companies House. For existing directors and PSCs in office before 18 November 2025, ECCTA s.65 imposes a twelve-month transition window: verification must be completed and notified on the next confirmation statement falling on or after that date, or by 18 November 2026 at the latest.

For multi-SPV property families, the practical consequence is that each individual verifies once and the verification flows into every entity. A founder who is a director of an FIC plus four BTL SPVs verifies once at the individual level and lodges the personal code with all five entities. The mechanic is set out in detail in our ECCTA identity verification operational walkthrough.

What Happens Next?

If the four headline answers above (multi-million portfolio, multi-generational horizon, governance-capable family, comfort with the cost) match your situation, the next reading order is:

  1. The FIC decision pillar for the is-it-worth-it suitability framework.
  2. The FIC complete mechanics reference for the share-class architecture, governance, and life-and-death tax treatment.
  3. The FIC versus discretionary trust comparison for the four-axis trust-or-company decision.
  4. The FIC IHT BPR myth page for the Pawson investment line and where BPR does and does not survive.
  5. The growth and freezer shares design page and gifting shares to children for the share-class architecture and seven-year PET mechanics.

If the four headline answers do not match your situation, the FIC route is probably not for you, and your wealth-planning effort is better spent on the simpler structures (direct ownership; conventional buy-to-let SPV; spouse Form 17 split; bare trust for adult children; ordinary lifetime gifting). Our specialist team works on the suitability question before the structure-design question, so a conversation tends to clarify whether the FIC route fits before committing to advice fees.

Authorities Cited