Apologies I hadn't written the post clearly, I was on a phone call at the same time this never works, its a January 2023 accounts year and the payroll would include a bonus for January 2023 to go through the payroll year April 2023,
True but you have to start somewhere, time, effort, patience and a bit of luck and who knows. Leaving to undertake bookkeeping seems a hugely retrograde step and a career cul de sac.
I'd suggest persevering, passing the exams is a percentage game, work harder than your fellow students and you will pass, also you state that you love your company, why would you leave, membership of the institute is a highly valued prize and audit is a well paid profession especially of you get a practicing licence to sign off audits. I'm befuddled as to why you want to swap to bookkeeping?
I think that the clients point is that he doesn't want his partner leaving the business but remaining a significant shareholder, can section 165 be applied again to the same gift in reverse. It doesn't feel right as said earlier, a gift is a gift.
In that case it feels like a gift with reservation, however though it would be sensible to have some sort of precautions in place to ensure that the business continues regardless of any outside changes. Can section 165 be applied to the same gift but back to the original giftor.
Who knows and that's the problem, I think the concern is that Person A gifts shares under 165 to Person B, Person B then does or doesn't do something and Person A wants the shares back, there could be a shareholders agreement written up that in the event of "whatever" Person B must return their shares but could these be returned as a gift under section 165 without any CGT. Is it acceptable that shares bounce around whilst remaining at base cost, can they be returned to the original giftor.
Thanks , I was going on the principle that it is the person who receives the supply that is entitled to recover the vat (not necessarily who was invoiced), in this case potentially the person who received the supply is the company and the director was a bare trustee simply facilitating the finance. Maybe?
My answers
Apologies I hadn't written the post clearly, I was on a phone call at the same time this never works, its a January 2023 accounts year and the payroll would include a bonus for January 2023 to go through the payroll year April 2023,
After a discussion its going to be a straight gift. Thanks for the replies.
True but you have to start somewhere, time, effort, patience and a bit of luck and who knows. Leaving to undertake bookkeeping seems a hugely retrograde step and a career cul de sac.
That could be a nasty surprise.
Thank you, that feels right to me also. Cake and eat it comes to mind.
I'd suggest persevering, passing the exams is a percentage game, work harder than your fellow students and you will pass, also you state that you love your company, why would you leave, membership of the institute is a highly valued prize and audit is a well paid profession especially of you get a practicing licence to sign off audits. I'm befuddled as to why you want to swap to bookkeeping?
I think that the clients point is that he doesn't want his partner leaving the business but remaining a significant shareholder, can section 165 be applied again to the same gift in reverse. It doesn't feel right as said earlier, a gift is a gift.
In that case it feels like a gift with reservation, however though it would be sensible to have some sort of precautions in place to ensure that the business continues regardless of any outside changes. Can section 165 be applied to the same gift but back to the original giftor.
Who knows and that's the problem, I think the concern is that Person A gifts shares under 165 to Person B, Person B then does or doesn't do something and Person A wants the shares back, there could be a shareholders agreement written up that in the event of "whatever" Person B must return their shares but could these be returned as a gift under section 165 without any CGT. Is it acceptable that shares bounce around whilst remaining at base cost, can they be returned to the original giftor.
Thanks , I was going on the principle that it is the person who receives the supply that is entitled to recover the vat (not necessarily who was invoiced), in this case potentially the person who received the supply is the company and the director was a bare trustee simply facilitating the finance. Maybe?