No, I don't have a statutory reference.
But it is a process issue. Peoples debate / questions on called v issued v called & unpaid is all irrelevant.
For a company limited by shares then at least one person subscribes for at least one share on incorporation.
Hence issued shares will always be at least one share, in practical terms.
Whether that one issued share has been paid or not is a different matter, and determines where the double entry is.
Equally whether further shares have been issued is another matter, as is whether they are called and paid or called and unpaid.
The only way the share capital could be zero, IMV, is if there had been a buyback or cancellation. At that stage with no shareholders the company has to cease to exist, presumably becoming bona vacanta.
But in the context of a typical small company, this is grossly overthinking and over complicating.
girlofwight wrote: Assuming they are subscriber shares they must inter alia be called
Is this a statement or a question girlofwight? If it is a statement, can you give us the statutory reference?
Karen, only just seen this.
If you are sorted now, fine, but if not get in touch - I am a RYT200 as well as accountant, and offer free help and support for yoga teachers on accounting worries, and a discounted fee for tax returns etc
Despite giving them notice and our contract running out Saturday, they rang up yesterday wanting to upgrade us. Sigh.
If it's been going on for a couple of years, you may ask HMRC why they didn't peruse the debt with client sooner; if they have let two years arrears run up, then I may suggest they are also culpable.
Also, think of course, about AML reporting.
For those of us old enough to remember Freeway
For those of us old enough to remember Iris's purchase of Freeway PayPal, and the "support" afterwards in the first year of incentive driven EOY payroll filing it's the same again. Hour long call waits were not unusual.
I personally lost faith in Iris then.
We've used Drummohr for a little over 15 years, with concern when Iris took them over, but took the decision not to follow them into the cloud. Fortunately out license ends 30 April so it's more or less tax year aligned.
I'm glad, from reading above, I'm not the only one flummoxed by three weeks notice. I thought I had missed a communication from them months erlier - obviously not.
So, not sure about current Drummohr support, but my general feeling about Iris over a number of years is not warm.
We still use Compac accounts production, which is Keytime owned. I suspect time is running out in this, but we've just signed a three year contract which goes against my instinct but (a) it's very keenly priced - sub £400 a year - and there is a low cancellation fee of 20% of the two future years renewals if we did cancel. And, of course, if they make significant changes to the program then there will be constructive termination on their part anyway. Buys us time to look elsewhere for AP.
The devil will be in the detail, but on facts given I would err towards looking through both intermediaries and look at the nature of the relationship with the end customer; that should address IR35.
The second issue is Agency rules, and again on facts given they shouldn't affect things.
And poaching staff...
As well as spamming inboxes, I was more that miffed when they were advertising job vacancies to my staff /trainees using my firms email system. The CX couldn't see what was amiss with that when I complained.
I'm an ACCA member of 28 years; I would struggle to say I've had much in the way of value or benefit from ACCA in that time, other than the kudos of the letters; engagement with them has normally been tense and stressful, and an attitude of indifference meets obstruction. There have been two notable exceptions to that when they were very helpful.
Yes, you would time apportion the gain.
However I would question the exclusive use suggestion. Your client may have been describing it as that, but do the facts support it.
My understanding is a small amount of PU of the area would eliminate CGT and probably not effect the claim for expenses.
A car hire company cannot claim AIA, but thats a function of AIA not being available on cars.
My understanding is the dividing line is between assets bought for an active hire business (AIA available) versus a passive leasing business (AIA not available)
Assuming the two businesses are connected I would err towards saying the full AIA will be OK on a look through basis. I'm not sure of the statutory position, but I can't see HMRC arguing it.
An umbrella arrangement offers nothing special re IR35. The principle advantage of an umbrella is ease of admin for the client.
With an umbrella, other than a modicum of allowable expenses, excluding from this April t&s, everything has to be payrolled. The result will not be significantly different to the client having their own company and paying an IR35 compliant salary.
If you are happy to look after your contacts business, and are au fait with IR35 calculations, then there is no reason why you could not do so.
Two things to bear in mind:
- dont make assumptions about IR35 status - check the contract and working practices
- the issue of sole trader v limited may well be dictated by the engaged, as they may not wish to contract with a sole trader. If the engager has no preference, then it's a number crunch on company v self employed. If there were an IR35 fail issue then as a sole trader the engager would be liable; the well advised engager is therefore likely to want to contract with a company.