• 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!

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.

Previously on "New director, when can dividend be taken"

Collapse

  • THEPUMA
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    When you say familial I presume you mean any relationship be it parents, children and so on? The same question for s660. Would the Arctic case have been any different if it had been father/son instead of married couple?
    Yes linear or by marriage. Essentially, it is simply a question (for employment-related securities purposes) of whether the shares have been received as a result of an employment relationship or not.

    The result of the Arctic case would have been different if it were adult son and father AND the dividend paid to the non-fee earner did not fInd its way back to the fee-earner. So, for example, if I had an adult son at university, I could potentially tax=-efficiently give him shares and a dividend in order to help him pay his way through uni but once he had finished uni, if he received a dividend and paid it back to me, that would be ineffective (ie I would be taxed on the dividend).

    PUMA

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by THEPUMA View Post
    I did put in my original post that the legislation would be unlikely to apply if A and B had a familial relationship or if they were unmarried partners so I think we are in agreement.

    I also agree with all of your other points.

    PUMA
    When you say familial I presume you mean any relationship be it parents, children and so on? The same question for s660. Would the Arctic case have been any different if it had been father/son instead of married couple?

    Leave a comment:


  • THEPUMA
    replied
    Originally posted by ASB View Post
    Yes, but I believe (probably wrongly) that that would only become an issue if the transaction was not treated as a transfer between spouses and also that it wasn't at a "fair" price.

    Interesting you raise goodwill, that is of course also a factor in ascertaining the "fair" price, however on the assumption that it is a standard contractors business undertaking one off contracts then the goodwill is, I think, likely to be zero.

    However, a possible scenarios is there may be some support contracts or similar bringing in some income; here there is certainly at least some goodwill value. After all part of the business value is based upon how it generates its revenue.

    Ultimately I guess the point is simple. In order to be able to ascertain the best way for the OP to achieve their objectives a lot more needs to be known. This can include the history of the business and the history of the people; not that this is necessarily relevant, but it can be.

    Of course you are the accountant not me, so my comments are simply based on what I had to discover at various points and how it affected my specific circumstances.
    I did put in my original post that the legislation would be unlikely to apply if A and B had a familial relationship or if they were unmarried partners so I think we are in agreement.

    I also agree with all of your other points.

    PUMA

    Leave a comment:


  • ASB
    replied
    Originally posted by THEPUMA View Post
    Agreed. But the recipient of the shares could also land up with a PAYE liability in respect of a £35K benefit-in-kind (or more if HMRC tried to include the value of the goodwill).

    PUMA
    Yes, but I believe (probably wrongly) that that would only become an issue if the transaction was not treated as a transfer between spouses and also that it wasn't at a "fair" price.

    Interesting you raise goodwill, that is of course also a factor in ascertaining the "fair" price, however on the assumption that it is a standard contractors business undertaking one off contracts then the goodwill is, I think, likely to be zero.

    However, a possible scenarios is there may be some support contracts or similar bringing in some income; here there is certainly at least some goodwill value. After all part of the business value is based upon how it generates its revenue.

    Ultimately I guess the point is simple. In order to be able to ascertain the best way for the OP to achieve their objectives a lot more needs to be known. This can include the history of the business and the history of the people; not that this is necessarily relevant, but it can be.

    Of course you are the accountant not me, so my comments are simply based on what I had to discover at various points and how it affected my specific circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • THEPUMA
    replied
    Originally posted by ASB View Post
    PUMA,

    No, I was just considering the current "fair price" for the shares. Let us assume that the shares were originally issued as 100 x £1. Let us also assume the company has retained funds of 50k. Also that it is a bog standard close company. It seems to me a reasonable valuation to put on the 70% shareholding changing hands is 35k. Anything significantly different to this may require justification at a later date and the relationship between the 2 parties may govern whether CGT is due at this stage or not.
    Agreed. But the recipient of the shares could also land up with a PAYE liability in respect of a £35K benefit-in-kind (or more if HMRC tried to include the value of the goodwill).

    PUMA

    Leave a comment:


  • ASB
    replied
    Originally posted by THEPUMA View Post
    This may have been what ASB was referring to when he mentioned valuations but I thought it best to elaborate given the potential substantial amounts of tax involved.
    PUMA,

    No, I was just considering the current "fair price" for the shares. Let us assume that the shares were originally issued as 100 x £1. Let us also assume the company has retained funds of 50k. Also that it is a bog standard close company. It seems to me a reasonable valuation to put on the 70% shareholding changing hands is 35k. Anything significantly different to this may require justification at a later date and the relationship between the 2 parties may govern whether CGT is due at this stage or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • psychocandy
    replied
    Originally posted by THEPUMA View Post
    The other thing you need to be wary of is the employment-related securities legislation. Essentially, if the shareholder is being given shares by virtue of their employment, then they would be subject to employment taxes on the value of the shareholding received.

    If A and B have no familial relationship (and are not unmarried partners), it is quite likely that this legislation could apply and this could be very expensive from a tax perspective.

    This may have been what ASB was referring to when he mentioned valuations but I thought it best to elaborate given the potential substantial amounts of tax involved.

    There may be other ways to acheive the same outcome but as others have said, we would need to know more detail of the circumstances.

    PUMA
    Agree with Puma here. It makes a difference if A and B are married or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • THEPUMA
    replied
    The other thing you need to be wary of is the employment-related securities legislation. Essentially, if the shareholder is being given shares by virtue of their employment, then they would be subject to employment taxes on the value of the shareholding received.

    If A and B have no familial relationship (and are not unmarried partners), it is quite likely that this legislation could apply and this could be very expensive from a tax perspective.

    This may have been what ASB was referring to when he mentioned valuations but I thought it best to elaborate given the potential substantial amounts of tax involved.

    There may be other ways to acheive the same outcome but as others have said, we would need to know more detail of the circumstances.

    PUMA

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by zedskidder View Post
    Why would HMRC be interested in the previous arrangement? Strikes me as perfectly normal for an owner of a company to employ someone to do work and hence make them money :/ Isn't that the essence of business?
    It does and it is all probably fine if we had more details. I would be interested in feedback from the other guys as I don't quite understand the switch so could be normal but to have all divis going to a non earner and the earner only getting PAYE looks odd. I am coming from the assumption the PAYE is getting 7K minimum or something and the rest of (and greater amount) is being taken by the non-earning directory. As I say, the devil is in the details which isn't on the mail or any of our business I guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • ASB
    replied
    Originally posted by zedskidder View Post
    Why would HMRC be interested in the previous arrangement? Strikes me as perfectly normal for an owner of a company to employ someone to do work and hence make them money :/ Isn't that the essence of business?
    They wouldn't be particularly interested, save for the fact that dependant upon valuations and the relationship between A and B it is possible that various aspects of S660 could come into play.

    Leave a comment:


  • ASB
    replied
    There are of course also requirements to ensure the shareholder register is updated, stock transfer forms completed, exemption from stamp duty (if applicable).

    There are potential CGT implications since the disposal of Party A 70% shareholding is clearly unlikely to be an arms length transaction, then there is the question of the valuation of the shareholding.

    Naturally if party A and party B are married (or in a civil partnership) then there are different CGT rules etc involved.

    The fact that B is becoming a director is an entirely different issue, but again the agreement needs miniting and co house need to be notified. Party B does not have to become a director simply because they are becoming a controlling shareholder.

    Leave a comment:


  • zedskidder
    replied
    Why would HMRC be interested in the previous arrangement? Strikes me as perfectly normal for an owner of a company to employ someone to do work and hence make them money :/ Isn't that the essence of business?

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Get the agreement proposed and agreed in writing and signed off by all parties and get the Co House bit done as soon as possible to keep everything squeaky clean. Obviously we don't know the in's and outs of the prior structure but HMRC would be very interested in that arrangement with the facts given so better to dot the i's and cross the t's for the new one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig@Clarity
    replied
    A meeting and dividend can be issued with effect from when it was agreed and signed off and you don't need to wait for Companies House to be updated. However, saying that, the update to Companies House (if done on-line) is almost immediate anyway so it doesn't really make a difference.

    Things to think about when issuing or transferring the shares is stamp duty and former "s660".

    Leave a comment:


  • zedskidder
    started a topic New director, when can dividend be taken

    New director, when can dividend be taken

    Hi,

    Currently have a company structure where party A is the sole director and shareholder but not a fee earner, and party B is a fee earner but is on PAYE, no shares. We want to change the structure so that party B becomes a director and majority shareholder, with the split becoming 30/70 A:B.

    Can a company meeting be held to conclude this outcome and a dividend be issued to that effect immediately? Or does the appropriate paperwork have to be processed by Co. House first?

    Thanks,

    Mark

Working...
X