MVL - entrepreneurs relief and starting new LTD Company

[jamesbrown]

Time for General...

[bcontractor]

Clearly going via an Umbrella company is not the most tax efficient way of contracting, but it might be the best of both world for two years.

People also keep forgetting that, if your situation changes, you have options. One of them being that if you decide to open an LTD again, you can inform HMRC and pay the income tax that you should've paid when you liquidated.

[luxCon]

Clearly going via an Umbrella company is not the most tax efficient way of contracting, but it might be the best of both world for two years.

People also keep forgetting that, if your situation changes, you have options. One of them being that if you decide to open an LTD again, you can inform HMRC and pay the income tax that you should've paid when you liquidated.

What income tax?? Could you please be clear. A little information is far worse than no information

The worse case scenario the way I understand it is the difference between paying 10% ER tax on gains, or the worse option of paying 20% GCT if you started trading within 2 years.

Not having a dig at you, however definitely there are a few people on these threads that pass on a lot of nonsense as fact and the tone is somewhat aggressive supported by bitterness.

[Lance]

there are a few people on these threads that pass on a lot of nonsense .....

Exhibit A.....

Northernlad, you seem to know everything. What if I collected all the invoices, and sent them all a day after the 2 years?? Wil that do the trick?

Exhibit B... (well spotted JB I missed that)

The worse case scenario the way I understand it is the difference between paying 10% ER tax on gains, or the worse option of paying 20% GCT if you started trading within 2 years.

[jamesbrown]

The worse case scenario the way I understand it is the difference between paying 10% ER tax on gains, or the worse option of paying 20% GCT if you started trading within 2 years.

Stop opining on stuff that you know nothing about.

The TAAR has nothing to do with ER, it is part of the TiS legislation and concerns the capital treatment of specified transactions. The ER is completely separate and is part of your SATR. So you will not default to CGT of 20% in the event that the TAAR is not met because there will be no capital treatment.

[bcontractor]

What income tax?? Could you please be clear. A little information is far worse than no information

The worse case scenario the way I understand it is the difference between paying 10% ER tax on gains, or the worse option of paying 20% GCT if you started trading within 2 years.

Not having a dig at you, however definitely there are a few people on these threads that pass on a lot of nonsense as fact and the tone is somewhat aggressive supported by bitterness.

I have spoken to my accountant and various liquidators. Every single one has said the following: if you go for MVL and pay CG (at 10% if eligible, 20% if not) because you are planning to not start trading within 2 years, but subsequently your circumstances change and you decide that you want to trade again in a similar trade, you can inform HMRC and pay the additional liability, which would be the difference between the CG you paid and the tax you would've paid if the distributions had been treated as dividends.

If you don't inform HMRC (with all the ethical implications of not doing so), they might contact you, at which stage you will have to go through an investigation. If TAAR applies, they'll want the different in liability + interest + penalties (which can be substantial).

[jamesbrown]

Exhibit A.....

If we're going to start exhibiting evidence against luxCon, we might want to switch to a numbering scheme...

[luxCon]

Exhibit A.....



Exhibit B... (well spotted JB I missed that)

As with Exhibit A it was said in jest but clearly the gel in some contributor's head is set too hard to get it


As for B, I am happy to be corrected and the forum to become source of Facts rather than assumptions. Why dont you correct any misinformation with valid reference to external sources rather than attack

[Lance]

As with Exhibit A it was said in jest but clearly the gel in some contributor's head is set too hard to get it


As for B, I am happy to be corrected and the forum to become source of Facts rather than assumptions. Why dont you correct any misinformation with valid reference to external sources rather than attack

for it to be understood to be in jest there needs to be some credibility earned. At the moment your credibility is pretty low so stupid ideas look like stupid ideas rather than jokes.

As for reference. Jamesbrown corrected you quite correctly. It's quite hard to reference the fact that TAAR is not related to ER as it's not related. One is a rule on what you can do after a capital distribution. The other is a personal tax relief on capital gains. You might argue they are related to capital, but TAAR has no bearing on ER and ER has no bearing on TAAR.

[northernladuk]

Stop opining on stuff that you know nothing about.

Yeah because that's my job and I'm ****ing good at it.