Member Since: 15th Oct 2010
11th Oct 2019
This impression is merely my belief. I'm an accountant of many years experience. Simply, I was under the impression that HMRC could not go back any further than 6-years. I've not specifically checked this, to confirm my belief, as I've been unable to locate their precise rules on the matter. And, when speaking with HMRC, they were neither able to tell me where I could find those rules. In fact HMRC's stance on the matter was that they would write to set out their opinion in a letter. Now, by phone, when I was chasing that letter, they say they're not going to send it and, if I disagree with them taking the repayment back 20-years, my only course of action is to write to them and specifically quote their own rules and guidance notes as to why they are wrong.
29th Aug 2012
Whilst further details have been requested, it currently appears that the shares were given as 'a favour', for advice, mere 'influence' in obtaining business deals and personal support given by director of company A to the director of the other company over several years. Hence why no cash exchanged hands for the shares to company A (which are likely to be sold at a considerable profit in the near future).
15th Jan 2012
I appreciate your response.
I appreciate your response. Thank you.
15th Oct 2010
Husband and wife
Pete, I've just discovered that the 'partners' in question are not married. They are common-law only, which I guess does not qualify as civil. They have children and live together as man and wife but are not married. How does this effect the situation? I've looked at the form 17 and it specifies married or civil only.