Shoving some dividends into the missus

[northernladuk]

aren't alphabet shares basically not covered by the Arctic Systems test case?
And therefore unproven.

If they have the same rights as missinggreenfield says it appears to be accepted as OK.

[Fred Bloggs]

I'll just reiterate the words I took professional advice and guidance to try to avoid the inevitable posts.

So did a lot of people caught up in tax avoidance schemes too.

Myself, I think the use of alphabet shares is one step too far for a basically one band band Ltd Co. Most accountants would agree. Additionally, the use of alphabet shares by the likes of Brookson etc was one key reason the MSC regulations came into force. Hence, HMRC seriously dislike them.

[Major Hassle]

So did a lot of people caught up in tax avoidance schemes too.

Myself, I think the use of alphabet shares is one step too far for a basically one band band Ltd Co. Most accountants would agree. Additionally, the use of alphabet shares by the likes of Brookson etc was one key reason the MSC regulations came into force. Hence, HMRC seriously dislike them.

I agree with Fred, have 50:50 share distribution, normal shares wife is Company Secretary. Wld avoid Aphabetty Spaghetti shares personally - no such thing as a free lunch

[SueEllen]

So did a lot of people caught up in tax avoidance schemes too.

Myself, I think the use of alphabet shares is one step too far for a basically one band band Ltd Co. Most accountants would agree. Additionally, the use of alphabet shares by the likes of Brookson etc was one key reason the MSC regulations came into force. Hence, HMRC seriously dislike them.

Some interesting reading linky

[Major Hassle]

Some interesting reading linky

This

Thus, as long as a spouse (or civil partner) is given ordinary shares (carrying the normal full range of rights), any dividends paid on the shares should be treated as their income and the settlements legislation would not apply.

Many advisers prudently recommend that dividends paid to a spouse should be paid into their own separate bank account (as opposed to the couple’s joint account).

[SuperLooper]

This
Many advisers prudently recommend that dividends paid to a spouse should be paid into their own separate bank account (as opposed to the couple’s joint account).

Why?

My spouse and I only have a joint account, no individual accounts.

[northernladuk]

Why?

My spouse and I only have a joint account, no individual accounts.

Because it looks you are allocating the divi to her to avoid the taxation on yourself but receiving the benefit when it hit's your joint account. Someone else will provide a posher explanation with big words shortly.

[Lance]

Why?

My spouse and I only have a joint account, no individual accounts.

as do we. I pay my divi to one joint account and pay her divi to another joint account.

[missinggreenfields]

Myself, I think the use of alphabet shares is one step too far for a basically one band band Ltd Co.

Why? At what point is it not too far - two people, three, four, more?

Additionally, the use of alphabet shares by the likes of Brookson etc was one key reason the MSC regulations came into force. Hence, HMRC seriously dislike them.

I'm sure you know more about it than I do, but I cannot see how alphabet shares link into MSC legislation at all.

[missinggreenfields]

Because it looks you are allocating the divi to her to avoid the taxation on yourself but receiving the benefit when it hit's your joint account. Someone else will provide a posher explanation with big words shortly.

hits

I can't understand just having one bank account - far too easy to break the £75k protection limit that way!