[Tax Planning][17/18] Company structure - spouse

[northernladuk]

Damn that's a good memory...

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

You are THEPUMA and I claim my £10.

[RonBW]

Ask as much as you want. I'm happy to admit I don't know enough about the details so you are going to have to ask someone a little smarter than me. I was only making the point about the advice on Alphabets which seemed to be against the advice of most of the accountants on here, even though it appears possible. In hindsight I should have just left it at that.

I'll give you the answer - it cannot be a settlement, whether you use alphabet shares or not. The value is zero. There cannot be a settlement. In the same way that you can give (for example) 10 class B shares to an unmarried partner where the value of the company is nothing, there is no tax to pay - nothing to do with Arctic but very much common sense.

And I'm sure that there are plenty of contractors who use alphabet shares (and non-alphabet shares) to give a stake in the company to people who would never be covered by any precedent that Artic set - if the value of the company is £100 (assuming that the company has 100 £1 shares) then the size of the settlement is so low to be meaningless.

[northernladuk]

But for the third time of asking, please explain how a gift of zero value can be considered a settlement?

Ask as much as you want. I'm happy to admit I don't know enough about the details so you are going to have to ask someone a little smarter than me. I was only making the point about the advice on Alphabets which seemed to be against the advice of most of the accountants on here, even though it appears possible. In hindsight I should have just left it at that.

[RonBW]

LOL.. I don't think you can say it's utterly incorrect

No -the bits where you showed that HMRC were wrong were correct

There isn't enough there for my simple mind to come to the conclusion that Artic stands so this one is water tight. Not nearly enough. So for that I still think it's a risk.... and a bit of a pisstake in my very flawed opinion but there you go.

Nothing is watertight - even of you look at the Arctic case, that did not (as many amateurs believe) determine the case for settlements conclusively. You have to look at the law and the precedents set and see what might apply. You also need to factor in HMRCs track record in getting this right (hint, it's non existent).

If it's as black and white as you say we might as well all do it right now.. for what reason? Business reasons or purely tax ones?.. obviously the latter.

How you structure your business is up to you - unless there is a law against it then you are free to do that as you choose. We might as well all do it now - I agree. Unless there is anything preventing it, why wouldn't you do it?

Each to their own, it's not actually been tested in court but IMO it's not a slam dunk as should be treated with care as indicated by a few other posters.

Which is kind of what I said - if it's done properly, if the share isn't just a right to income, and you want to consider this then you should take professional advice.

But for the third time of asking, please explain how a gift of zero value can be considered a settlement?

[northernladuk]

Everyone knows your opinion is always correct, so no need for reinforcement from me...

Ouch!!!!

[Maslins]

Only them???

Everyone knows your opinion is always correct, so no need for reinforcement from me...

[northernladuk]

FWIW my view is to steer clear of alphabet shares. Basically I agree with TCP and WiB above.

Only them???

[Maslins]

FWIW my view is to steer clear of alphabet shares in a situation like this. Basically I agree with TCP and WiB above.

[northernladuk]

LOL.. I don't think you can say it's utterly incorrect. There isn't enough there for my simple mind to come to the conclusion that Artic stands so this one is water tight. Not nearly enough. So for that I still think it's a risk.... and a bit of a pisstake in my very flawed opinion but there you go.

If it's as black and white as you say we might as well all do it right now.. for what reason? Business reasons or purely tax ones?.. obviously the latter.

Each to their own, it's not actually been tested in court but IMO it's not a slam dunk as should be treated with care as indicated by a few other posters.