Share this content
0
12
4850

Does a CT600 and accounts need to be submitted

Morning all, I have a client who let his company get struck off by not filing accounts. The accounts in question show no taxable profits, but they are trading nonetheless (final period upto cessation). Does a CT600 need to be submitted, notwithstanding that the company no longer exists? If there was tax payable what would be the position (although no funds with which to pay)?

Thanks.

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Who would pay your bill?

If the company does not exist any more then who would pay you to prepare these accounts?

If the company is struck off then there is nothing more to be done.  Yes, they should have gone down the official closing process, but HMRC would have been made aware that they were being struck off and did nothing

Thanks (0)

Yes, but, no, but...

Thanks for your response.

My fees are not in question. What I need to know is there any need to actually submit the CT600? Or do I just write to HMRC and say the company is struck off and so please close your file? Is the director liable in any way for letting it be struck off and not submitting the CT600?

Thanks. 

Thanks (0)

Who would sign the accounts and the CT600?

There are no directors of a dead company!

Thanks (0)

where any assets frozen, seized?

bank accts etc?

Thanks (0)

No assets frozen

Thanks for the responses.

There were no assets to freeze.

So I take it I should just close the file? Just feel that I should tell HMRC because otherwise there will be CT603's, etc. flying out all the time.

Thanks.

Thanks (0)

yes....telll HMRC

When you get a communication from them write "Company has been struck off" on it  and send it back to them - ideally if you have one of those old freepost envelopes in one of them.

Thanks (0)

Money Laundering

I am no expert but I did wonder if there is a money-laundering angle. Non-payment of tax due because funds used for something else.

Thanks (0)

Oops!

I agree that the company has been struck off and has now ceased to exist.  However, once it is struck off don't all of the assets belong to the Crown?  Surely continuing to trade means there is a bank account at risk?

HMRC normally require Extra Statutory Concession 16 to be granted, which makes the directors personally liable for any missing tax.  If ESC 16 hasn't been granted, I thought they would object to a company being struck off.  Looks like this one slipped through the cracks!

Thanks (0)

Striking off before submitting final accoutns and CT600

My view is that a striking  off using form 652A requires the directors to certify that its not traded for 3 monhts and that there are no creditors. If any creditors pop up the Directors are personally liable for the company;'s debts. I think post CA2006 this risk is for 2 years but I am sure that before CA2006 the risk was for 20 years. Certainly I warn all my client that striking off leaves them open for claims unlike liquidations where a year after liquidation the file is most definitely closed.

 

So if a company is struck off for late filing, its still a striking off not a liquidation so personal liability remains. Otherwise why not run up debts, get struck off and walk away ??? Clearly that reckless course of action woudl not be in the public interest.

 

In terms of bona vacantia any  assets over £4,000 belong to the Crown,. If there were a bank account and the bank foudn out the company were struck off it woudl freeze the account as a non-existent entity can;t draw money out.

 

I had a client who struck themselves off with form 652A without telling me. I filed accoutnts and CT600 and told taxman company was gone and so had no future CT return requests. Client had in fact used 652A form just a week or so after stopping trading rather than waiting for 3 monhts, but if  COmpanies House is going to dish out PDFs of forms to anyone who log into the website then it shoudl expect people to use them irresponsibly or incorrectly.

Thanks (0)

Confusion?

 

A bit of confusion reigns here, it would appear. The correct route would have either been ESC C16/form 652A or a formal liquidation. Which route you choose depends on circumstances – not least of which is the value of the share capital. If this is less than £4,000, by concession the Treasury Solicitors will not take issue if it is repaid as part of the striking off route. If over that level, their view is that it is not repayable, as to do so would be an illegal return of capital, and therefore devolves to the Crown under the bona vacantia principle. So, if share capital is over £4,000, you would either have to go down the formal liquidation route or firstly reduce the level of share capital down to that figure BEFORE going down the ESC C16 route. As far as I know if the company is struck off the directors are NOT personally liable for any debts, although if they have acted negligently they could be held liable for any legal costs incurred by a creditor in having the company re-instated, should a Court so order.  Phil Wood  www.barringtons-insolvency.com

Thanks (0)

and if the assest are less than £4k?

If the share capital was say, £100k and there were losses of £96k or more the repayment of share capital would be less than £4k.

So presumably ESC C16 would apply?

Thanks (0)

Form 652A and creditors
One of the correspondents wrote ..."My view is that a striking off using form 652A requires the directors to certify that its not traded for 3 months and that there are no creditors. If any creditors pop up the Directors are personally liable for the company;'s debts. I think post CA2006 this risk is for 2 years but I am sure that before CA2006 the risk was for 20 years. Certainly I warn all my client that striking off leaves them open for claims unlike liquidations where a year after liquidation the file is most definitely closed".

Another correspondent stated that this was not so.

Can anyone confirm the position please.

Thank you

Thanks (0)