Share this content

Checking my thinking

Shareholder exit agreed for nil consideration

Didn't find your answer?

Client is a micro entity with 2 directors who each own 50% of the issued  share capital.  The relationship between the directors is brother-in-law. 
Company was set up 5 years ago (was previously a small partnership).  This was initially a part time / weekend business, with both directors working full time in other jobs. Shortly after incorporating 5 years ago, director 1 was made redundant and decided to go run the business full time, with the intention of building it up. From that point onwards, director 2 took a back seat and has not had any real involvement since. 
 

5 years on, the business is sustaining director 1 who takes a salary. The company makes modest profits and doesnt pay dividends. 
 

Director 1 has had a discussion with director 2 and they have agreed that director 2 shall leave the company, ie, he will resign as director and 'give up his shares' for no financial consideration. 
 

I have been considering the options. Transfer of shares from director 2 to director 1 would not be advisable, as this would fall within the ERS regs with director 1 obtaining shares. Yes, the reason could be friendship, but I suspect it is in reality it is a reward for input and is taxable at MV. 
 

Also, Brother-in-laws are related parties for CGT purposes so market value would apply.

I was thinking that the simplest way would be a company purchase of own shares, for £1. The shares could then be cancelled and director 1 becomes the sole owner by default.  I am now thinking that, although the connected parties rules don't apply to POOS transactions,  TCGA 1992, s17, could apply but am not sure.  If so, then director 2 will have a market value disposal for CGT purposes. 
 

Questions are a) opinions on whether s17 would apply and

b) am I missing anything?

It is a very long time since I've dealt with PooS transactions but it seems to be the simplest way of achieving the objective, ie, director 2 wants out and doesn't want any payment for his shares. 
 

Thanks in advance

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
29th Aug 2021 18:08

The missing data is the value of company.
Director one could have a dividend to make less value, with a waiver on shareholder 2
Could do that several times
And The market value of non marketable shares is quite low, given that to date no dividends have been declared
I personally would not give tuppence for those shares

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Manchester_man
29th Aug 2021 18:19

I agree. The company is worth no more than 15k and probably closer to 10k. Not sure whether this would need to be agreed with SVD.

I think CPooS is the answer as it avoids the potential ERS tax charge.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
30th Aug 2021 08:54
Thanks (1)
By Duggimon
30th Aug 2021 09:23

I too would be looking at poos.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By wingman22
30th Aug 2021 09:50

Possibly comment of the year. Got to love an acronym.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Manchester_man
30th Aug 2021 15:30

Thanks for the confirmation. I am now concerned about the ERS legislation. Shareholder 1 will not receive any new shares, but I don't think new shares have to be received for the ERS legislation to come into play. Director 1 will receive a post-transaction uplift in value, so I'm now trawling guidance to see whether this is indeed a concern.

I've now found out that they are not brother-in-laws, as there is no marriage, so I don't believe they are related parties for CGT purposes.

The plan is to do a PooS at nominal value i.e. £1.

Am I over thinking this? I just don't want to fall foul of any rules. I hope that the transaction is safe from ERS taxes, but I can't see how it can be, because of the transfer of value.

P.s. I have realised that the client isn't actually married so the parties are not brother-in-laws (not that this is relevant to ERS)

Thanks (0)
By SteveHa
31st Aug 2021 12:30

If the market value of the shares based on company value is only up to £15K, and if the director has no other gains in the year, I wouldn't worry about. Even MV is only £7.5K and well within the AE.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
01st Sep 2021 07:51

I agree ERS, not CGT, is your issue on the facts given, with the proposal suggested.

What are the tax/other consequences/issues that would/could arise from winding up this company and D1 striding* out afresh with his/her own?

*Edited. I originally said "striking". Which still sounds correct to me. Is this down to regional differences?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
01st Sep 2021 11:49

Your *point ...
They're both idioms but not as far as I'm aware with regional bias or distinction.
Striking out is what you probably meant ... being indicative of (new) independence;
whereas striding out (whilst similar) has more to do with the vigour/determination of the person.

Thanks (1)
Share this content