Member Since: 31st Mar 2016
21st Oct 2021
Absolutely, but I would expect the consequences would be greater for the seller (as in IT vs CGT), than for the buyer (only SDRT as far as I can see). Was there anything else, in particular that you were thinking about when you made the observation? Clearly, if, at some future time the remaining shareholders then sought to become sellers, the seller's tax considerations would come into play for them if no later share sale/purchase agreement were negotiated at that point. All that said, as I mentioned, I have been very clear to the "buyers" about their need to take necessary tax and legal advice before going too far down the path.
20th Oct 2021
Last time I looked yes, but it is clearly something that would be confirmed prior to considering any share purchase by the Company. As mentioned, the greatest constraint would be the cash balances, which would dictate some form of deferred purchase arrangement with the seller.
19th Oct 2021
Thanks for feedback so far. I am in no way supporting the outgoing shareholder, who, at this point has relatively little (but not zero) involvement with the daily activity of the company. I have also made it clear to the two "active" shareholders that I believe they will need to take external advice (legal and tax). They do have a Shareholders' Agreement, which (superficially) deals with the sale process, but it may well need to be supplemented by a specific one for the particular circumstances being negotiated in this case. All I was really trying to do, was some "background" research around the topic, for my own benefit, so that I better understand where some of the "pinch points" might be. Thanks again.
27th Aug 2021
I possibly have a different take on this, from a lot of the guys on here, as I have not worked in practice, or for myself as an accountant. For me, in the early years of the career, experience trumps exams every time, so get a job (at the bottom, I am sure) that has relevant learning and skills attached to it. If they will pay for you to learn, as well, so much the better! Working in practice at the lower levels would certainly (to my mind) give you varied experiences, but also has drawbacks, for me. I am afraid that to me, as an employer, you are not much use racing out of Uni with a degree and nothing else. Hurtling through the exams also does little to give you the experience you will so badly need (a) when trying to get ACCA or CIMA accreditation and (b) when looking to move up the ladder in work. Having a thorough practical grounding in the basics creates a solid foundation on which to build. I have seen so many people who stormed through exams, with degree exemptions, only to think they are now fit to become managers and leaders, when they know very little of the basics of what they will need their teams to be doing. I worked first, and qualified later, and that is not necessarily the best way, either, but it did make the exams feel a little less abstract, when I could relate it to some of the things I had been doing in the day job! This should be something that will help set you on an upward path for the rest of your work life. Whichever way you choose, good luck.
8th Apr 2021
So much for the Government, and their "gig" economy. They still can't get beyond everyone must be an employee of someone! Clearly they need to focus on some innovative solutions to waiting until after the year-end to collect taxes. Maybe MTD/RTI might aid that thinking. I can't disagree that many people seem to expend a large amount of effort (or pay someone else) to find ways around paying their fair share, but surely in this day and age................
8th Apr 2021
Kemu, I have no basis to challenge the voracity of your research, but doesn't it just feel perverse when the size of the ultimate hiring company (let's say "employer" for a moment) determines whether they or the contractor's company must make the determination. If deemed a "small" employer, then the onus shifts to the contractor to make it. Yet, almost invariably, the contractor could be expected to be smaller, and is less likely to have access to the resources to make that determination without resorting having to pay someone else to do it for them! Strange, and on this evidence, feels like another piece of legislation aimed squarely at enriching the army of professional advisers (that must now surely be approaching the size of China's military might)! Agree the Indemnity clause seems pointless, but feel equally certain many "employers" will insist on it, to try to scare the contractors, based on contracting "power", and then let it be struck down either by HMRC or the courts. Similarly, I would hope the contractors will find sufficient resources to purchase insurance, but maybe that is naive?
13th May 2019
At a previous company, we developed a spreadsheet model to support any decision to pay a dividend, and we dealt with interim distributions by restricting the profit available for distribution to include only the lower of YTD Profit or forecast final profit, after tax, for the year in question. Requires you to be forecasting full year profits on an ongoing basis, but not a bad business discipline, anyway! Remember to always have the Board minute to support the decision, as well.
28th Jan 2019
Just of out interest, I have been to a local accountant, and all I get is "boiler-plate" back. If I want more, I have to pay more! I haven't even set up the company that I am being forced to, in order to contract with an organisation. I note with interest, that the "8 questions" didn't come forth, presumably as that might allow someone without this knowledge to understand a bit more. So, I have to go and pay good money I don't yet have for professional advice, and yet I see another blog request this morning about what further deductions an accountant might look to make for his client, and the advice is positively flowing. I wonder, when is advice not advice?!
20th Dec 2018
You assume complicated = big, and that is not the case here. Also, this is a very unusual transaction for a (relatively) small private group of companies to undertake. I met out auditors today to go through their proposed treatment, and before that, I just wanted to sound out my peers (who I reasonably assumed might have more experience of such accounting for group restructurings that i certainly have) to be able to get a sense for how I feel the conversation ought to go. I have always found Accounting Web's forums to be highly informative, and helping those accountants among us, who are in business (not practitioners) to gain a deeper understanding of any relevant topics discussed in here. I greatly value what I have read, as "another perspective", and thank everyone for their thoughts. In no way, would I ever look to this forum as a cheap alternative to paid advice, rather as a Peer Group network, where people freely share their knowledge and thoughts with others, who ask, out of recognition that none of us know it all! Please contrast this with some posts I have seen where people wish to use it as a free advertising vehicle for their products or services. Again, many thanks.
19th Dec 2018
Input is appreciated. Understand auditors will not be ignoring GAAP, and that we prepare the accounts for the companies and not the shareholders. However, if we are being asked to report a loss on disposal as the NAV being removed from the consolidation is greater than the consideration received, then surely in the "acquiring" entity, the NAV being received is greater than the consideration paid, and we should record ...........?