CG34
It would also be good to point out that any valuation can be verified with HMRC (post transaction) using CG34, although this would bring the transaction to their attention but this shouldn't be an issue if there is a genuine transaction occurring with nothing to hide.
Martin
Contratax Ltd
- 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!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Limited company valuation to buy shares off of partner"
Collapse
-
FWIW I needed to get valuation for CGT purposes many years ago now just like the OP. In fact my original accountant neglected to do this or even mention CGT to me which is one of the reasons I got a new accountant!
I paid a relatively small fee for a company valuation, which my accountant sub-contracted to a specialist. The calculation was not complex but was not merely based on the company net assets.
Being able to show you've done due diligence with regard to valuing your company for CGT purposes makes it much easier to defend the valuation to HMRC if they ever enquire.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by craigy1874 View PostWould you? Really? When the owner/manager could walk away tomorrow and start contracting through a newco?
Doesn't seem the correct advice for me. Massive risk considering how easy it is for someone to speak to their agency and change their current contract into the name of a newco.
But let's put that comment into the context of this thread, which is about what the proper price is for shares in a company when the owner/manager is the buyer, not the seller. In which case the owner/manager is not going to both pay a higher price and walk away tomorrow, is he?
I'd imagine HMRC would argue that the owner/manager knows he isn't going to walk away if he's buying shares, and as such, the value SHOULD include some recognition of future earnings, especially if OP is currently in contract.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by craigy1874 View PostWould you? Really? When the owner/manager could walk away tomorrow and start contracting through a newco?
Doesn't seem the correct advice for me. Massive risk considering how easy it is for someone to speak to their agency and change their current contract into the name of a newco.
Any challenge is not going to happen on the day of the transaction taking place, but at some point, down the line, where there is likely going to be evidence of the company’s continued trading activity. It will be plainly clear by then that the company’s future income had a value over and above the net assets at sale.
With a topic as subjective as this, you cannot possibly advise people that their company is worth is it’s net assets and not make them aware that there is a risk (however small) that HMRC might not see it this way.
Share transactions made on a commercial basis are subject to due diligence and come with attached conditions/warranties to protect the investor – it is not the case of handing over a load of cash and hoping for the best.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Alchemy Accountancy View Post
How much would I be willing to pay for 11% of your business? Given the risk that you could walk away tomorrow, and the company cease to generate income/pay a dividend – it would certainly be less than what I’d pay for 11% of a business that can operate independently of its owner, but I’d give you more than the net asset value.
Normally I would discount down from net asset value if looking at a company to purchase as a 'cash shell' as it will cost you money to get the reserves out of the company!
Martin
Contratax Ltd
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Alchemy Accountancy View PostIt is well established in tax law that assets can be transferred between spouses at no-gain/no-loss for tax, however if you are not married then this is not the case. Transactions made at less than market value are subject to CGT on the full market value of the asset – however, putting a value on a private company (i.e. where the shares are not listed on a public exchange) is not straight forward, and the valuation could range anywhere from the company’s net asset value (on balance sheet) to the net present value of future income (dividends).
If HMRC were to look at this (granted unlikely) then they would be interested in what the shares would be worth on an open market i.e. outside your household.
By way of example, let’s say you were selling the shares to me (i.e. an unconnected third party), and 11 shares is 11% of the issued share capital.
How much would you be willing to sell 11% of your future income for? My guess is that it would be more than the net asset value of the company.
How much would I be willing to pay for 11% of your business? Given the risk that you could walk away tomorrow, and the company cease to generate income/pay a dividend – it would certainly be less than what I’d pay for 11% of a business that can operate independently of its owner, but I’d give you more than the net asset value.
Doesn't seem the correct advice for me. Massive risk considering how easy it is for someone to speak to their agency and change their current contract into the name of a newco.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gables View PostAgreed. My jump to assumption is he's getting divorced and wants to limit what's in the settlement - prejudging git that I am.
The much more likely scenario is that his partner now has a job, or a better job, so they want to change the shareholding split so that the partner's dividends don't incur high taxation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostIf we had a bit of background as to why he's doing this he'd probably get better advice. Looks more like a thread where the OP is looking for an answer and doesn't want to hear the full advice as he know's he won't like it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gables View PostIndeed, it would be much simpler.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Alchemy Accountancy View PostHow much would I be willing to pay for 11% of your business? Given the risk that you could walk away tomorrow, and the company cease to generate income/pay a dividend – it would certainly be less than what I’d pay for 11% of a business that can operate independently of its owner, but I’d give you more than the net asset value.
Leave a comment:
-
It is well established in tax law that assets can be transferred between spouses at no-gain/no-loss for tax, however if you are not married then this is not the case. Transactions made at less than market value are subject to CGT on the full market value of the asset – however, putting a value on a private company (i.e. where the shares are not listed on a public exchange) is not straight forward, and the valuation could range anywhere from the company’s net asset value (on balance sheet) to the net present value of future income (dividends).
If HMRC were to look at this (granted unlikely) then they would be interested in what the shares would be worth on an open market i.e. outside your household.
By way of example, let’s say you were selling the shares to me (i.e. an unconnected third party), and 11 shares is 11% of the issued share capital.
How much would you be willing to sell 11% of your future income for? My guess is that it would be more than the net asset value of the company.
How much would I be willing to pay for 11% of your business? Given the risk that you could walk away tomorrow, and the company cease to generate income/pay a dividend – it would certainly be less than what I’d pay for 11% of a business that can operate independently of its owner, but I’d give you more than the net asset value.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pr1 View Postif she/he is paying market valuation for the shares it's irrelevant
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gables View PostGive your partner 11 quid for them.
Leave a 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
Leave a comment: