Originally posted by jamesbrown
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
MVL Still not complete after nearly 1 year - anyone else?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by luxCon View PostI thought each distribution was treated separately, with its own 2 years clockComment
-
Originally posted by luxCon View Post
I thought each distribution was treated separately, with its own 2 years clock
Comment
-
Originally posted by Maslins View Post
FWIW this is our understanding too. Hence if the lion's share of funds are distributed soon after liquidator appointment, the delay to final distribution (whilst still annoying for all concerned) shouldn't have too big an impact.Comment
-
To my mind it's about risk. If you start a new similar business >2 years from the date of the first distribution, then seems we're agreed that first distribution should be safe. It's therefore only the final distribution (which we'll assume is a relatively modest figure compared to total net assets at time of appointing the liquidator) that's at risk.
Also when I say "at risk", if you want to be squeaky clean/risk free in a situation where you start a similar business >2 years post first distribution but <2 years post final distribution), you could always simply declare that final distribution as dividends in the first place. There's then nothing for HMRC to challenge. Yes you'll likely be paying more tax on that amount depending on other income that year etc, but again if the final distribution is low value relative to first one, you'll still have got the lion's share of the tax benefits from the liquidation as a whole.
Even if you did declare both as CGT, and HMRC challenged the latter one, I think you'd have a pretty good argument. You could clearly demonstrate the trade had ceased >2 years prior to starting the new company, liquidator appointment was >2 years prior too...indeed basically the only reason the final distribution was <2 years was due to HMRC being painfully slow to grant clearance. If it were me, I'd feel happy arguing that with a straight face/clear conscience, ie that what I'd done was not "a clear breach of the TAAR". Wouldn't guarantee I'd win, but again only the modest value final distribution amount should be at risk.Comment
-
Were you being chased asking HMRC via a freedom of information request for the average time for MVL validation for applications in each year from 2016-2020 should give you the information you needed to mitigate HMRC's argument.
Then provided the new company is 2 years + the average of the 2016-18 figures I don't think there would be any argument from HMRC.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Maslins, I think you severely underestimate the risk that, in the event of a clear breach of the TAAR, HMRC will not want to shine a spotlight on absolutely everything else you have done. That is how they operate. If the delay of the final distribution is a serious consideration at the time an MVL is started, then perhaps the person conducting the MVL might want to consider their underlying motivation for doing it and whether a company that distributes the full amount upfront might be a better option. Regardless, the simplest advice is to assume that you cannot re-incorporate until 2 years after the last distribution is received. In general, it is better not to sail close to the wind with these things because you are inviting a spotlight.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostMaslins, I think you severely underestimate the risk that, in the event of a clear breach of the TAAR, HMRC will not want to shine a spotlight on absolutely everything else you have done. That is how they operate. If the delay of the final distribution is a serious consideration at the time an MVL is started, then perhaps the person conducting the MVL might want to consider their underlying motivation for doing it and whether a company that distributes the full amount upfront might be a better option. Regardless, the simplest advice is to assume that you cannot re-incorporate until 2 years after the last distribution is received. In general, it is better not to sail close to the wind with these things because you are inviting a spotlight.
- the liquidation would be done and dusted well over a year ago, old company fully dissolved in a formal, proper way, so realistically no scope to look into that.
- the individual in question has recently started a brand new company, hence no skeletons in closet there.
- so it'd seem the worst HMRC could do if they really wanted to would be to raise enquiries into a couple of personal tax returns.
Yes we agree they might challenge the CGT vs dividend treatment of final distribution as discussed earlier, but assuming the individual in question isn't dodgy generally, what else are they going to see/challenge? Again I appreciate we're in hypothetical scenario territory, but in most of these situations with the typical reader of this forum, it'd be someone who'd been working inside IR35/PAYE/via an umbrella for a year or two between liquidation and new company. They'll therefore likely have P60/P45 data. What are HMRC going to challenge there?
Re your final sentence, sure, I totally get a lot of people will have that view, and nothing wrong with it. If we're talking about holding fire on incorporating company 2 for a month or two, and you're reasonably confident the opportunity (or a very similar one) will be around then, yes, why risk doing it now.
It also seems like it's irrelevant for most of the people in this specific thread, as seems they all got 100% distribution reasonably early on in the process. Hence from a personal tax perspective, there is no relevance at all to the timing of finalisation of the liquidation. It is just annoying for all concerned to have the liquidation open indefinitely.Comment
-
There are many vagaries in the TAAR, but the rule surrounding work involving the same or a similar trade or activity is clear as day as it relates to the timing of a distribution, so I personally think you would be an utter cretin to break that clear-as-day rule given all the other vagaries in the legislation that are asking for test cases. Again, you are asking for trouble and it's also completely unnecessary when you can arrange for a 100% distribution upfront. Once HMRC have committed resources to an investigation, they are committed. I find your comments surprising in that regard. There are plenty of examples of cases opened by HMRC that really should've been closed quickly and are instead pursued to the bitter end (and then lost, obviously).
Comment
-
Well I'm happy that the 2 year rule depends on distributions rather than waiting for the inept teams at HMRC before striking off the company. My distributions were very soon after the liquidation was initiated, so I only have another 18 months to wait
Vagaries in TAAR and in all things HMRC - yes I used to read these to death and in every single case HMRC would leave themselves a backdoor open. So if I were to advise anyone, it would simply be to be careful and get a professional involved.
One more thing: "intent" is something that shouldn't be ignored. I have seen and worked with this in property taxation and I believe it applies in this MVL/2 year discussion too.
BTW I do miss having these conversations with you guys. Life in permiedom is ... well... empty.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment