Share this content
0
2083

CT600 and Directors Loan account

Need to enter on the CT600 partial repayment of money loaned to my company

Didn't find your answer?

Search AccountingWEB

Hi  I have been using the Companies House accounts facility for several years now but when it comes to Corporation Tax I get stuck. It sems that each year they alter the CT600.  What I am doing is suporting my company financially and where a profit has been made using that money to reduce what the company owes me. Since my company is now making a profit, a very small profit, the Directors Loan is being reduced. I have never paid corporation tax because the company still owes me money. The part of the CT600 that has brought me to a standstill is Trading Losses CP281, CP281a, CP283a, CP288a, CP281b, CP283b, CP997, CP288b.   I have to submit the CT600 tomorrow. The old CT600 has a section CP281, 282 ,283, 284.That works.

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
to Hfacc
30th Dec 2018 23:04

Now it makes sense. OP isn’t being helped by including the DLA on his balance sheet not under ‘Current Liabilities’ but with capital & reserves in the bottom half.

Those accounts are what happens when directors ‘don’t need’ accountants.

I’m intrigued about the software that was capitalised over 10 years ago at £599 and never been deprecated.

Does the directors report even pass Companies Act?

Thanks (0)
avatar
to Hfacc
31st Dec 2018 10:21

Had a look. Wish I hadn’t. Feel sick.

Thanks (1)
to andy.partridge
31st Dec 2018 10:34

I particularly like the conversational tone of the Director's Report.

Thanks (2)
avatar
to lionofludesch
31st Dec 2018 10:37

The plea to prospects to check out the website. Cool.

Thanks (2)
to andy.partridge
31st Dec 2018 11:02

It's like you're sitting on the sofa with a pot of tea and he's telling you how the company's business is going on.

Thanks (2)
By DJKL
to lionofludesch
31st Dec 2018 13:57

Here is a set you might enjoy from Athelney Trust though given the recent upheavals re its management at present I would be cautious re buying the shares- such advice is now too late for me.

What actually hooked me to the company was the Chairman's Report and Strategic Review- I enjoyed the style and bought some shares as a long term buy and hold- in effect an infinity holding.

http://www.athelneytrust.co.uk/perch/resources/2017-final-signed-account...

Thanks (0)
to DJKL
31st Dec 2018 14:34

This man should be Prime Minister.

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
to lionofludesch
31st Dec 2018 14:48

He does have a certain je ne sais quoi.

Thanks (0)
to DJKL
31st Dec 2018 14:53

Yet I wouldn't have thought he was French.

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
to lionofludesch
31st Dec 2018 15:22

Possibly not. Maybe I was thinking about Emmanuelle.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to DJKL
02nd Jan 2019 11:12

Heroic work to drag a £5m asset fund out to 59pp of accounts. He talks as though he think he is Buffett but doesn't have the same performance record...

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
to WhichTyler
03rd Jan 2019 13:08

I think the other beasts he is involved with are slightly bigger.

Thanks (0)
to Hfacc
31st Dec 2018 12:19

I love a set of accounts like these. It comes to the end of another year and you question what it is all about and whether what I do is worthwhile. Then you see how poorly people do the job without an accountant's help and it makes me feel like I do have a beneficial job. Bringing order to chaos, helping people make appropriate disclosures in the public domain, planning for tax so even if there aren't profits today, we are ready for the profits of tomorrow.

Thanks (1)
avatar
30th Dec 2018 23:06

Good grief, this thread gave me a headache

A classic example of somebody quite clearly not having a clue what they are doing.

Summary of this thread:
A non-accountant internet services provider argues with a bunch of esteemed professional accountants that he is right, and that the accountants are wrong. All because Companies House didn't reject his earlier submission.

MTD anyone?

Thanks (3)
avatar
to Manchester_man
30th Dec 2018 23:10

Manchester_man wrote:

Good grief, this thread gave me a headache

Try being part of it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By SXGuy
31st Dec 2018 08:45

Just because the company owes you money does not mean you owe no tax. You said it made a profit, so it owes tax. Unless you have losses from other years to reduce that.

Just because you paid some expenses on behalf of the company, does not mean it reduces the tax you owe, it simply means, the company owes you the money.

Nothing to do with ct600.

If you genuinely believe that Company loans reduce your Corp tax I'd strongly suggest you wind up the company now before it owes alot more than just you.

Thanks (0)
31st Dec 2018 10:13

Bloody hell. Worse than I thought.

Try using the template, Geoff. At least you'd get the numbers in the right places. Have a read of FRS 105 before next year end - in, er, 14 hours.

What a pathetic state Companies House and HMRC are in !!

Millions of companies and taxpayers and a staff of about six overseeing compliance. Who would've thought compliance would be so poor ?

Everybody.

Thanks (0)
avatar
31st Dec 2018 13:14

These accounts are priceless.

As someone pointed out several dozen posts ago the OP would have been better off (probably) being self-employed. We don't know but on the basis that the OP has another (taxed) source of income he could have offset his losses and maybe recovered 20% of his losses as a tax refund.

I hope so anyway because that would be poetic justice.

Thanks (0)
to thomas34
31st Dec 2018 13:33

thomas34 wrote:

These accounts are priceless.

Surely you mean worthless.

Thanks (0)
avatar
02nd Jan 2019 09:32

Just clocked this thread and read all the way through: absolute comedy gold. This bloke makes my dimmest client look like a genius, as at least my client is aware of his limitations.

In all seriousness, though, the push to make accounts "easier" is going to produce more and more of this drivel. I think we need an equal opportunities campaign here as, clearly, every accountant deserves the chance to be a professional sportsman or rocket scientist for the day.

Oh, hang on, it doesn't work that way....

Thanks (1)
02nd Jan 2019 09:46

Here's what I don't understand ...

The Government clearly don't want to be bothered checking that accounts and tax returns are in any way correct.

But they don't encourage directors or taxpayers to have them checked by their own advisors.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Laws and FRSs are no good without any policing or enforcement. Some 76 year old pensioner can come along and just submit a chatty letter to Companies House and nobody says a word.

Thanks (3)
avatar
03rd Jan 2019 12:49

And here's what I don't understand....

These sort of threads / questions pop along every now and again and IT guys form a significant proportion of those asking the questions.

Now I get that IT guys are more likely to give this sort of thing a go than the average Joe, and are therefore more likely to land themselves in the brown stuff. But what I don't get is their child-like insistence that, just because a computer somewhere has accepted their nonsense figures, then that somehow makes those figures right.

They're IT guys for chrissake, haven't they heard of the garbage in / garbage out principle? Aren't they aware how difficult it is to program anything to make it moron proof? Haven't they, in their own specialist areas, ever had any interaction with the pile of sh*te which is HMG's IT infrastructure?

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
to adam.arca
03rd Jan 2019 13:22

adam.arca wrote:

Haven't they, in their own specialist areas, ever had any interaction with the pile of sh*te which is HMG's IT infrastructure?

C'mon, cut some slack, you're shooting my son here.

His role in his working life to date has mainly been developing software for Government departments or fixing patches over existing stuff , first written for them when Herod was a lad.

He needs a bit more time, he's only been out of uni a few years, he is doing his very best to rewrite all HMG software plus Scottish variants of same, but it does take time.

On the plus side for HMG, as everything he does is covered by the OSA he cannot possibly comment on their procurement processes and how they spec what they want.

Thanks (0)

Pages

Share this content