Most Tax-Efficient Set Up?

[The Leopard]

Wind up? Who's wound up? Surely such a response is simply the done thing?

That at least is my understanding. I was just trying to avoid being rude.

 

[Liquid validity]

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget-updates/autumn-tax/ict-1820.pdf

Close companies: contents
CTM60100 - Close companies: tests: contents
CTM60310 - Close companies: tests: 35% or more voting power held by public
CTM60700 - Close companies: close investment holding companies: contents

 

[Liquid validity]

CTM60105 - Close companies: tests: specific exceptions

All in all though, yeah LLP looks like less hassle.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Sh1t they class it as shares down to that level, I thought you meant they had to be
publicly issued, or at least in issue beyond director level.
Told you I knew f**k all about this stuff though didn't I

Well technically you could have a limited by guarantee corportae body so you wouldn't need shares but then you wouldn't be able to distribute dividends which is the purpose of the whole dealy innit. S'all company equity and how you distribute profits etc innit. The massive scam that is the veil of incorporation. All the big bods use corporates.

Companies act is a massive, massive piece of legislation mate. I think it might be the biggest.

 

[Liquid validity]

Well technically you could have a limited by guarantee corportae body so you wouldn't need shares but then you wouldn't be able to distribute dividends which is the purpose of the whole dealy innit. S'all company equity and how you distribute profits etc innit. The massive scam that is the veil of incorporation. All the big bods use corporates.

Companies act is a massive, massive piece of legislation mate. I think it might be the biggest.

Minefield for the unwary (me for starters )
I'm still not really sure what the grey area is on CEIC classification.
From the looks of things it appears to be whatever HMRC and a good tax lawyer says.

I can see why you say LLP is the preferred route for this situation.
Going back to what you say above, a guaranteed corporate body - lack of dividends.
The tax break with dividends although worthwhile isn't massive is it, excess profits
could still be left in the company, using CGT when dissolved yeah?

Basically though I guess its HMRC trying to prevent individuals from
what they see as abuse of the companies act to avoid income tax.
Depending on your point of view, they probably do have a point...

 

[The Leopard]

excess profits
could still be left in the company, using CGT when dissolved yeah?

This can still present problems, actually. HMRC are very aware of dodges like that.

 

[barjon]

Ah, just pay up and be a good citizen, lep . If you paying a lot you must be making a lot, so all is right with the world.

With the sort of relaxed trading you seem to do I doubt you'd have much trouble with the more reputable big SB guys. Why don't you open a shadow account with one of them and see how it goes? You can gradually increase size until (if) you find a level where they start mucking you about.

jon

 

[Liquid validity]

This can still present problems, actually. HMRC are very aware of dodges like that.

Only if you take the p1ss and form and dissolve a company every couple of years or less surely?
I know what you mean though, the CGT on dissolve is only really meant as
a very infrequent action.
They wouldn't have a problem with it if you only ever dissolve one company?

I spose a lot of it comes down to what I mentioned in my last post:

From the looks of things it appears to be whatever HMRC and a good tax lawyer says.
Basically though I guess its HMRC trying to prevent individuals from
what they see as abuse of the companies act to avoid income tax.
Depending on your point of view, they probably do have a point...

BBC News - Barclays UK corporation tax bill for 2009 was £113m
If a chump in the street even thought about trying that you'd probably have a reservation in
Lester Piggotts old suite
No to mention Barclays legal bill was probably more than the tax paid...

 

[The Leopard]

Ah, just pay up and be a good citizen, lep . If you paying a lot you must be making a lot, so all is right with the world.

With the sort of relaxed trading you seem to do I doubt you'd have much trouble with the more reputable big SB guys. Why don't you open a shadow account with one of them and see how it goes? You can gradually increase size until (if) you find a level where they start mucking you about.

jon

Already had my trouble . Not just that, but crazy spreads etc.

I'm with one of the DMA SB outfits now, and all is fine fiddle as far as it goes. But they charge teh big commissions. With a regular futures broker I'd pay much less.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Only if you take the p1ss and form and dissolve a company every couple of years or less

As a professional I wholeheartedly condemn this kind of behaviour... Which HMRC can do nothing about.

 

[Liquid validity]

As a professional I wholeheartedly condemn this kind of behaviour... Which HMRC can do nothing about.

Thats probably why they scrapped ESC C16, replacing with S1030A and the
much loved 25k limit

 

[robster970]

As a professional I wholeheartedly condemn this kind of behaviour... Which HMRC can do nothing about.

I've told you before scose - being a 'rent boy' is not classified as a profession.

 

[The Leopard]

I've told you before scose - being a 'rent boy' is not classified as a profession.

A vocation in his case, isn't it?

 

[robster970]

A vocation in his case, isn't it?

A lifestyle choice perhaps?

 

[The Leopard]

A lifestyle choice perhaps?

Probably. Combining business with pleasure, it's a smart move.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

I'm a f*cking professional. I don't do things by halves, I tell you.

 

[bid_diddler]

I'm a f*cking professional. I don't do things by halves

strictly (w)holes for you then.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

When HMRC closes a loophole they can't apply the changes retrospectively . . . .

But they can certainly tie the scheme up (ie effectively put it on hold AND prevent withdrawel of monies)

Appened to a fund managare mate of mine, £250k tied up for 3+ years while the taxman "investigated" it.

Ouch

 

[kimo'sabby]

I'm a f*cking professional. I don't do things by halves, I tell you.

Mate, is a trade, one trade, classed as an expense? Within that one trade, we have the risk amount, the comms etc, and the trade becomes a profit or a loss.

How much of that can i claim back, as a self employed, sole trader?

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Ask me again but in English this time. BE as detailed as poss if you can. Feel free to PM me if you'd rather do that but if it helps others better in here innit.