A client filed an allotment of a second "B" share at the ROC although specific clauses in both the M&A clearly state that only one can be in issue. At the time of the allotment this was the situation, so the later allotment was, in my view, not possible from a legal viewpoint. Numerous attempts to deal with the matter at the ROC are proving to be unsuccesful and conflicting comments and advice are being received from them. How can you amend the ROC record? A form RP04 cannot be used (although this had been advised) because the number of shares in that 2nd allotment (SH01) cannot be reduced from 1 to Zero. The whole situation is now causing further problems because HMRC would normally be involved (ERS activities~Share scheme annual return) but, again in my view, there can be nothing to report to HMRC because the recorded transaction cannot be regarded as having legally taken place and is therefore invalid. Are there any suggestions as to what procedure is required to, in effect, completely remove any reference to that 2nd allotment in the ROC record and is the view shared that an HMRC annual return filing requirement would be superfluous?
Replies (11)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I have no idea and think it is a legal question but I don’t follow that just because something was not lawful then it isn’t taxable.
Dividends a prime example
Still you are a better man than I am as i have no idea what ROC means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc_(mythology)
Paul if you are able please would you give an update on the client and her barrister who said you should have claimed as I missed it, I asked on the revived SEISS thread today.
Zero further contact
I hope they figured out how to claim the 4th, But the client was at the time putting into emails that she intended to stop trading.
Did not really want to start any more opportunity to give rise to friction. Barrister had claimed that she was helping a family friend.
Not sure that forwarding the intended cessation of trade email to Barrister would have been helpful, but useful to leave for later
The claims for SEISS would be way below my PII excess, so PII would have no incentive to argue
Nobody outside the company will be in any way interested as nobody reads The memorandum and articles.