RE: Can't Get Secretary To Resign - What are my options ???

[psychocandy]

One thing though. Isnt who owns the company/has shares all a bit immaterial if you're married anyway? Even if you've taken all the money out of the company and stuffed it in a savings account shes gonna come after half of it.

Surely who gets the house/savings etc is an even bigger fight anyway.

[h8mmer]

Have you got differential shares (A + B etc)?
If so just hold a board meeting and vote to pay out a massive dividend per A share and sweet FA to B shares to clear out the profits.

Startup a new LTD, change your current contract (I've done this mid contract and the agency had no quibbles) and make your old company dormant and close after 3 months of inactivity. If she fights the closure then no biggie because theres no money coming in...

Your real problem is, as already said, that as she knows what you were earning and will want a settlement to reflect your much higher earning potential. Even if you have 3 months off and say you are unemployed her solicitors are more than likely going to look at the last 3 years worth of accounts and want a settlement based upon those.

Forget being amicable BTW; once money (and solicitors) comes into play the reasonable & sensible person you used to love will have turned into a money grabbing back-stabbing liar who will be after your jugular...and if you have kids

[d000hg]

That's a silly subjective opinion.

50/50 irks HRMC - Bollax they dont care

I've got probably 0.001% of Halifax shares but I do zero work for them. Can they take them off because of this or had I better turn up at the branch tomorrow just in case? More Bollax.

Sorry but you're just plain wrong. Setting up your shares as a way to pay someone who hasn't done any work is seen as trying to sneak your way out of tax. HMRC are only going to get more awkward.

And it logically IS inflexible - you HAVE to split dividends regardless of the other person's employment, which can be really inefficient.

[northernladuk]

Sorry but you're just plain wrong. Setting up your shares as a way to pay someone who hasn't done any work is seen as trying to sneak your way out of tax. HMRC are only going to get more awkward.

And it logically IS inflexible - you HAVE to split dividends regardless of the other person's employment, which can be really inefficient.

I agree totally and can't understand why we can't see that. How many times do we get people asking for advice on being tax efficient and them getting the advice to put their spouse on. If there was not 40K limit would they put their spouses on? Would they bollox so it is plainly a technique to artificially lower tax, and you think HMRC are happy with this?? Granted they have a piss poor regulation to try stop it and it is their rules that allow it in the first place but we can't be surprised they don't like it.

[TheFaQQer]

Sorry but you're just plain wrong. Setting up your shares as a way to pay someone who hasn't done any work is seen as trying to sneak your way out of tax. HMRC are only going to get more awkward.

Just because HMRC don't like something, doesn't mean that it's wrong to do it, or whether it's common or not. After Arctic, more people did this.

And it logically IS inflexible - you HAVE to split dividends regardless of the other person's employment, which can be really inefficient.

Not if you have different classes of share, it isn't.

2x Class A shares (1 each) with full voting rights and the right to receive dividends.
1x Class B share with non-voting rights, but the right to receive dividends.
1x Class C share with non-voting rights, but the right to receive dividends.

[d000hg]

Not if you have different classes of share, it isn't.

Sure but do you for 1second think that's what the OP has done?

[psychocandy]

I agree totally and can't understand why we can't see that. How many times do we get people asking for advice on being tax efficient and them getting the advice to put their spouse on. If there was not 40K limit would they put their spouses on? Would they bollox so it is plainly a technique to artificially lower tax, and you think HMRC are happy with this?? Granted they have a piss poor regulation to try stop it and it is their rules that allow it in the first place but we can't be surprised they don't like it.

As you always say NLUK, ask a professional not the forum members and in this case I have and this is what my accountant recommends.

Yes, of course, its done to avoid tax but that doesnt mean its not illegal. Yeah, of course, HMRC dont like it but do you really think HMRC like any contractors who are outside IR35? If it was up to them, and they could legally do it, they'd screw us all.

[psychocandy]

Just because HMRC don't like something, doesn't mean that it's wrong to do it, or whether it's common or not. After Arctic, more people did this.



Not if you have different classes of share, it isn't.

2x Class A shares (1 each) with full voting rights and the right to receive dividends.
1x Class B share with non-voting rights, but the right to receive dividends.
1x Class C share with non-voting rights, but the right to receive dividends.

I thought this is where problems occur if you use different classes of share?

BTW - as mentioned earlier, my setup is what was recommended to me by my accountants - NW.

[Wanderer]

Almost at the end of a horrific divorce....my soon to be ex-wife is the company secretary and she refuses to resign. Its the usual husband/wife setup where she existed in name only - I did all the work and ran the company. We are 50/50 shareholders having 1 share each (£1).

I'd say shut the company ASAP. If you pay out dividends then you will have to pay her as well if you have the same class of shares. Does the company have any retained funds? It could get complicated because as a shareholder, she is entitled to half of the company value.

You could also take the money out of the company as salary/bonus/redundancy pay so your company doesn't make a profit and she will get nothing in the way of dividends (though you will pay a lot more tax).

Alternatively, you could form a new company and subcontract all the work so your existing company makes no profit. Or can you issue a new class of share, buy one yourself and only pay a dividend to that share class? Could get nasty, you would probably want to get legal advice on this.

Sorry but you're just plain wrong. Setting up your shares as a way to pay someone who hasn't done any work is seen as trying to sneak your way out of tax. HMRC are only going to get more awkward.

The proper name for "sneaking your way out of tax" as you put it is "tax avoidance" and it is perfectly legal.

The government are well aware of dividend income splitting after the Arctic Systems case and they have decided not to legislate against it. HMRC are there to enforce the laws made by the government, if they "don't like" dividend splitting then that's their tough tulip.

[Optimus Prime]

One thing though. Isnt who owns the company/has shares all a bit immaterial if you're married anyway? Even if you've taken all the money out of the company and stuffed it in a savings account shes gonna come after half of it.

Surely who gets the house/savings etc is an even bigger fight anyway.

WHS.