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

[rtgibson]

Well thanks for all of the advice so far.....I'll start by saying that when I said "I do" and the phrase "happily ever after" was mentioned I certainly didn't think this would happen. However it has.....

The house and savings will get split up by the court....there is nothing I can do about that and she will come out of this with a house and be a wealthy woman (as will her partner in crime!), my main point was it seemed pointless working my ass off for the next 12 months for her to get half of that as well - that is what I wanted to protect (the company that "I" built).

The ex was only ever a part of the company/shareholder for the previous mentioned tax reasons....she never did any work she had her own part time job so its not like we ever worked together - I'd go as far as to say she hasn't got the foggiest what the company does or what her responsibilities as a secretary were (because I always did the filing at companies house etc).

Anyway - I am where I am in limbo at the minute waiting to see what the next move is.

While I'm here does anybody know which form from companies house I need to get hold of to get her to sign and "transfer" her shares if it gets that far ?....I've already got TM02 which is to terminate her employment ready.

[craig1]

If it works for you then fair does, but I guess you'll have to change things if you ever have kids and one of you is doing the child minding thing?

We've more chance of being elected joint Presidents of the World than having children. The wife is in her late 30s and can't stand children, she doesn't mind our god-daughter as we can hand her back after a few minutes but the thought of losing her independence scares her witless. We admitted many years ago that we were both far too selfish for children.

[psychocandy]

Not at all cynical, works perfectly for us. We just enforce a huge separation between work and personal life and it suits us perfectly. For example, we're both working at home today and the most we've said to each other since 8:30 is asking whose turn it is to make the tea, we'll have lunch together and a grumble about the idiots we're dealing with today then back to work. Come 5:30ish though, it'll be down tools and we're off out tonight with some friends.

Work is work. Play is play. We don't mix them and it works perfectly for us.

If it works for you then fair does, but I guess you'll have to change things if you ever have kids and one of you is doing the child minding thing?

[craig1]

****, what a cynical basis for a relationship.

As for 50 / 50 husband wife split arrangements (that I have), seems contractors who use this are happy to do so to lessen the tax bill (dont want a 100% tax bill on ourselves, do we?) but scream blue murder if \ when they have to give up 50% to the ex husband \ wife.

Bit of the old having one's cake and eating it, what?

Not at all cynical, works perfectly for us. We just enforce a huge separation between work and personal life and it suits us perfectly. For example, we're both working at home today and the most we've said to each other since 8:30 is asking whose turn it is to make the tea, we'll have lunch together and a grumble about the idiots we're dealing with today then back to work. Come 5:30ish though, it'll be down tools and we're off out tonight with some friends.

Work is work. Play is play. We don't mix them and it works perfectly for us.

[Mojito]

Keep your income stream understandable for what lies ahead..

Having just been through the same, you may want to go brolly while the D process runs its course. It keeps your income stream totally transparent and removes the possibility of the (soon to be) ex simply demanding half of your new company.

Write off 50% of the old company, assume the position for the tax you'll pay under the brolly, then breath a massive sigh of relief when it's all over. Good luck.

[BrilloPad]

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'm just asking really to see what options are avaliable to me - it would be nice to keep the company but since business contacts etc were always friends it wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to start again.....it would just be really really nice after nearly 10 years to keep things as they are minus her.

Can I sack her or force her resignation or anything ????

Thanks in advance for any ideas - I figured I'd ask the quick question first before going to a legal business place and roping in solicitors etc.

Why an earth would you want to keep a company your ex-wife was involved with? Do you still love her?

Its a continual reminder of the past. Start again and move on.

[psychocandy]

****, what a cynical basis for a relationship.

As for 50 / 50 husband wife split arrangements (that I have), seems contractors who use this are happy to do so to lessen the tax bill (dont want a 100% tax bill on ourselves, do we?) but scream blue murder if \ when they have to give up 50% to the ex husband \ wife.

Bit of the old having one's cake and eating it, what?

Gotta agree with BB here - it seems a bit cynical to me....

Nothing wrong with using the 50/50 split but you do need to understand the implications.

Remember the bit in the film Shawshank Redemption - Do you trust your wife sir?

[BolshieBastard]

A lot of this is why we (me and the wife) went for a LLP with an "eat what you kill" partnership agreement; my earnings are mine, hers are hers, we split the essential company expenses 50/50 and identifiably individual expenses come out of our own individual profits. One set of company admin work rather than two and a very well defined profits/costs agreement making it possible for us to work as if we were stand-off business partners, even in the event of a relationship breakdown.

****, what a cynical basis for a relationship.

As for 50 / 50 husband wife split arrangements (that I have), seems contractors who use this are happy to do so to lessen the tax bill (dont want a 100% tax bill on ourselves, do we?) but scream blue murder if \ when they have to give up 50% to the ex husband \ wife.

Bit of the old having one's cake and eating it, what?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.