Dormant: HMRC vs Companies House

Dormant: HMRC vs Companies House

Didn't find your answer?

I appreciate this topic has been discussed in AWeb numerous times, however I am still unsure about one thing.

If the only transaction that company has in its accounts is bank charges, I understand it is not dormant by Companies House definition as bank charges are not mentioned under insignificant transactions. However, I cannot understand why this company should not be classified as dormant by HMRC as by definition it looks like the company with only bank charges is inactive for Corporation Tax purposes. What confuses me that I have read in the web that if company does not submit dormant accounts to Companies House, then it should submit CT600. Why? Am I missing something?

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Flag of the Soviet Union
By thevaliant
23rd Feb 2016 22:08

Presumably, if it has only bank charges, then whilst not trading you might want to claim the losses c/f until a time when it does trade?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pqaccountant
23rd Feb 2016 22:58

Yes, but for bank charges amounting a fiver per quarter it may not worth the effort of submitting the CT600. And the question is really about legal side, am I right that I do not HAVE TO submit the CT600 if the only transactions I have got are Bank Charges?

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
24th Feb 2016 07:49

Dormant/trading

Companies House splits companies between dormant and non-dormant.

HMRC splits companies between trading and not trading.

Thanks (0)
Replying to tom123:
RLI
By lionofludesch
24th Feb 2016 09:16

Absolutely right

petersaxton wrote:

Companies House splits companies between dormant and non-dormant.

HMRC splits companies between trading and not trading.

Agree.  Dormant is not a HMRC term.

It's nonsense to say that CT600 must be submitted if dormant accounts are not.  It only needs to be submitted if HMRC insist and if the company isn't trading, that's unlikely.

Thanks (0)