Share this content
10

Corporation tax demand has arrived dissolved co

Company was dissolved 6 moths ago but final Corporation tax bill not paid

Didn't find your answer?

Client has received a CT enforcement letter for a company dissolved 6 months ago for not filing final accounts or confirmation statement. Acccounts were filed with HMRC however, hence the tax bill. Obviously the company no longer exists to pay the bill. Will HMRC seek to reinstate the company? Its about £8K in tax.

Replies (10)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Accountant A
08th Dec 2019 11:24

What did the balance sheet look like when the company was dissolved? Who was advising the directors?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
08th Dec 2019 11:39

send it back to HMRC and write on it that it was dissolved on whichever date and the ball is back in HMRC's court, they will probably close the file. In the good old days they used to apply to the high court for a restoration and simultaneous winding up but i believe they stopped in most cases as this did not release any revenue. this i would suggest is below the material level for them but you never know

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JDBENJAMIN
08th Dec 2019 14:59

HMRC should have objected to the striking off, and got the company wound up properly, but we all know how useless they are in these situations. They may well do nothing, based on my experience.

Thanks (0)
Replying to JDBENJAMIN:
avatar
By gillybean04
06th Jan 2020 05:24

Needle in a haystack

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
08th Dec 2019 15:38

even if HMRC did object CH still S1000 dissolve after about 3 months, see my thread from about a month ago

Thanks (0)
RLI
By lionofludesch
08th Dec 2019 17:43

Best not to open any mail addressed to the company.

The client's not a director any more - why is he opening someone else's mail ? None of his business.

Just send it back, unopened, marked "Company dissolved [date]"

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bernard michael
09th Dec 2019 09:58

If they suspect some form of chicanery by the directors they may
apply for restoration. If they do expect further problems eg investigation of directors' conduct

Thanks (1)
By kenny achampong
10th Dec 2019 13:58

Instead of the massive waste of time that MTD has been, why didn't HMRC channel that time and money and write a very simple program. They know the CH number, so if they are owed money, just automatically object to the striking off. How hard can that actually be ?

And whilst they're at it, change the law so that banks have to tell HMRC when companies open an account, and then not let themselves be struck off until they have filed a CT600.

With a lot of talk about tax, it's been riling me recently about all the tales about tax evasion and how Labour are going to clamp down etc etc. Forget about us people that file accounts, I would guess the real evasion is under the radar, and they have no idea about. I did pick out 20 companies formed a couple of years ago at random, and about half never filed any accounts and were getting struck off. I wouldnt mind betting quite a few of those were trading. How hard would it be for CT/VAT/PAYE offices to be linked to CH and automatically stop striking offs if they are registered.

They have made tax evasion far too easy.

Thanks (0)
Lisa Thomas
By Insolvency Practitioner
10th Dec 2019 14:02

Highly unlikely imo.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By whitevanman
10th Dec 2019 19:59

HMRC do get notified whenever the Registrar is considering striking-off a company and they have the opportunity to object. That said, even where they do so, they need to maintain their objection or SO will proceed after 3 months.
In this case the more interesting question is that posed by AA. What did the BS look like.
If as is said, the company filed accounts showing CT due of £8k, one would expect there would have been assets. So, what has happened? If the funds have simply been taken by the shareholder, there is a possibility they will pursue recovery and / or other claims against the SH.
Reinstatement is, I understand, not that expensive and is certainly pursued by HMRC more frequently. It is not however, the only way of skinning this particular cat.

Thanks (0)
Share this content