'Reference 2' on the Dairy Crest wikipedia page which was posted earlier is a history of Dairy Crest which states they only became a limited company in 1987. Which would suggest the shares did not exist in 1982.
If the shares were given free then presumably the base cost is zero?
Has there actually been a change of intention though?
The way your post reads is that Mr A wants to sell the building and has noted he can get more for it with PP for residential conversion. At no point has the intention changed from selling the property. So it's all capital not income.
That is not the same as Mr A decides to develop the building and gets PP to do so but then changes his mind and sells it.
I have zero experience of this sort of matter, so this is merely my opinion of what would make sense.
For the utilities companies in particular, could you just advise them that A Ltd (incorrect name) moved out of the premises on date xx/xx/xxxx and B Ltd (correct name) moved in.
They should then close the account for A Ltd and open one for B Ltd and you will have the correct name on invoices.
However my point was that how the property was financed i.e. bank loan/director loan/ own retained earnings does in no way determine whether the property is an investment property or is property, plant & equipment.
So if its a rental property, it will probably be classified as an 'investment property' with it being measured at fair value.
The OP made reference to a medium sized company so I assume FRS 105 and its differing treatment of investment properties is not relevant in this instance.
My answers
'Reference 2' on the Dairy Crest wikipedia page which was posted earlier is a history of Dairy Crest which states they only became a limited company in 1987. Which would suggest the shares did not exist in 1982.
If the shares were given free then presumably the base cost is zero?
Superseded by what?
Has there actually been a change of intention though?
The way your post reads is that Mr A wants to sell the building and has noted he can get more for it with PP for residential conversion. At no point has the intention changed from selling the property. So it's all capital not income.
That is not the same as Mr A decides to develop the building and gets PP to do so but then changes his mind and sells it.
I have zero experience of this sort of matter, so this is merely my opinion of what would make sense.
Might want to think again about this bit pal.
Refer to paras 23.6 and 23.7 of FRS 102. 23.7(a) looks relevant to this scenario.
Who will be the actual employer of the staff?
See this from a Freedom of Information request.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is_visa_sponsorship_considered_a
Obviously any such guidance from HMRC should be considered against actual relevant legislation.
However it suggests that where your client has been in the UK for several years and this payment is so that they may remain then it would be a BIK.
Why is the tax deferred to January 2021, if this is salary why is it not subject to PAYE immediately?
For the utilities companies in particular, could you just advise them that A Ltd (incorrect name) moved out of the premises on date xx/xx/xxxx and B Ltd (correct name) moved in.
They should then close the account for A Ltd and open one for B Ltd and you will have the correct name on invoices.
I understand what you are saying.
However my point was that how the property was financed i.e. bank loan/director loan/ own retained earnings does in no way determine whether the property is an investment property or is property, plant & equipment.
So if its a rental property, it will probably be classified as an 'investment property' with it being measured at fair value.
The OP made reference to a medium sized company so I assume FRS 105 and its differing treatment of investment properties is not relevant in this instance.