Mistake leaves taxpayer with huge bill

[missinggreenfields]

She didn't take a wage but looking at that statement many husband and wife company's are going to struggle if the remuneration to effort provided by the wife comes under scrutiny surely?

Because she had no shares, she had no beneficial interest in the company - she couldn't argue that she had a beneficial interest in the company based solely on the work that she did.

If you split the company between husband and wife, then there clearly IS a beneficial ownership, because both parties own part of the company.

[missinggreenfields]

How come it opened in 2000 but only started making a profit in 2004? That's a long stint on the bench.

He paid everything out as salary for the first year, then went permie and left the company dormant, then came back to it after that.

[missinggreenfields]

I would expect there will be a claim on Giants PI, but doubtless the insurers will try and argue that Taxpayer should have accepted responsibility.

I'm not so sure that you can blame the accountant in this one, although they certainly didn't help themselves.

The notes taken by the adviser at the time say that the shares should be 100% to Mr Raine (paragraph 51). Apart from the first company return, every other one was prepared by him. He signed every annual return. He signed the accounts just below the bit which said who owned shares in the company. He never attempted to transfer any shares, or form a trust, or document anything which showed that she had any beneficial ownership. He was provided with details in 2006 from the accountant which showed the annual return and that he was the sole shareholder.

Can't really see a win if he goes after the accountant.

(That all said, I've just checked to see that what Companies House says is right for MyCo matches my understanding)

[Lance]

(That all said, I've just checked to see that what Companies House says is right for MyCo matches my understanding)

You're not the only one

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

To be fair reading the actual case the summary doesn't really match the actual situation. There is a lot more evidence that the contractor didn't read. For example it mentions that in the fact find it was stated he would get 100% and his lady friend got none. Apparently they verbally agreed this but there are no notes on that. There is lot more evidence to and fro. It's actually quite an interesting read. It's absolutely riddled with errors carried out from both parties from start to finish.

One point that is interesting and aside to the actual case. They argue that Ms Hamilton is was key to the company being a liaison between the company, agents and clients. A point that's made at least twice I saw when scanning it. The same old line most husband and wife setups on here try and argue. The judge said however..



She didn't take a wage but looking at that statement many husband and wife company's are going to struggle if the remuneration to effort provided by the wife comes under scrutiny surely?

Thanks - there are two sides to every story with cases like this, and I hadn't gone back to source.

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

I'm not so sure that you can blame the accountant in this one, although they certainly didn't help themselves.

The notes taken by the adviser at the time say that the shares should be 100% to Mr Raine (paragraph 51). Apart from the first company return, every other one was prepared by him. He signed every annual return. He signed the accounts just below the bit which said who owned shares in the company. He never attempted to transfer any shares, or form a trust, or document anything which showed that she had any beneficial ownership. He was provided with details in 2006 from the accountant which showed the annual return and that he was the sole shareholder.

Can't really see a win if he goes after the accountant.

(That all said, I've just checked to see that what Companies House says is right for MyCo matches my understanding)

Deep pockets and nuisance value, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Giants PI insurers made a settlement regardless of the details.

[northernladuk]

Deep pockets and nuisance value, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Giants PI insurers made a settlement regardless of the details.

I put a claim against a solicitors PI insurance after they messed up a contract check in a property I bought and they were animals. Even if he does claim I'll bet the settlement figure is a long way off the amount HMRC want looking at the details of this one.

I would have thought there will be a lot of risk and cost chasing a decent figure and looking at the guys recent house sale I'm not sure he's got a lot to risk on it. Assuming it's his house.