• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Buying Co. assets - any limitations on what I can buy?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Oh yeah.... And what does your accountant say about all this
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

    Comment


      #12
      About twelve years ago, a certain company invested in shares in a classic car. The car wasn't ever driven and was restored and the share was eventually sold by the company and it broke even on its investment...
      I was an IPSE Consultative Council Member, until the BoD abolished it. I am not an IPSE Member, since they have no longer have any relevance to me, as an IT Contractor. Read my lips...I recommend QDOS for ALL your Insurance requirements (Contact me for a referral code).

      Comment


        #13
        This is pretty common sense and your specific example will be ludicrously transparent to HMRC. If YourCo purchases an asset and you personally benefit (e.g. by playing the piano), there's a potential BIK. Likewise, you can't buy wine for YourCo and drink it or buy a painting and stick it in your bedroom. Were this piano a legitimate investment for YourCo (yeah, right), YourCo would pay tax on any investment gain and you may also risk identifying YourCo as an investment vehicle (CIHC), depending on the circumstances surrounding those investments.

        Don't be a muppet and view YourCo as a mechanism to achieve some thinly veiled personal aims. You have a statutory duty to not run YourCo like a muppet.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
          This is pretty common sense and your specific example will be ludicrously transparent to HMRC. If YourCo purchases an asset and you personally benefit (e.g. by playing the piano), there's a potential BIK. Likewise, you can't buy wine for YourCo and drink it or buy a painting and stick it in your bedroom. Were this piano a legitimate investment for YourCo (yeah, right), YourCo would pay tax on any investment gain and you may also risk identifying YourCo as an investment vehicle (CIHC), depending on the circumstances surrounding those investments.

          Don't be a muppet and view YourCo as a mechanism to achieve some thinly veiled personal aims. You have a statutory duty to not run YourCo like a muppet.
          Looking back on this forum in the last few weeks this is not a new phenomenon-doo-doo-de-do-doo

          Comment


            #15
            Thanks to all for advice, especially pmasoft.

            LeCyclist
            ‘His body, his mind and his soul are his capital, and his task in life is to invest it favourably to make a profit of himself.’ (Erich Fromm, ‘The Sane Society’, Routledge, 1991, p.138)

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by lecyclist View Post
              Thanks to all for advice, especially pmasoft.

              LeCyclist
              Hmm, where have we seen this kind of behaviour on the forum before?

              A new poster asks a ludicrous question in the professional forums with an absurd scenario and ignores the sensible responses, I'm sure there's a familiar pattern to this.

              In the minuscule chance that this is a real poster with a real question (about 1 in a billion on that) the answer is don't be so daft.

              Comment


                #17
                Provided one is aware of the complications it really is fine. There is a possibility it may be beneficial. The question is simply when the bik exceeds what you would have paid in taxes.

                spend 5k on a grand. Not chargeable to ct. Its not an asset used in the business.

                Get charged to bik on 20% of the value, plus class 1a ni.

                Sometime later sell it. Expected outcome is a loss. Not offsetable. If it did make a profit it would be taxable. Though you could possibly try and argue it was exempt. Pma pointed out the exemption received by chattels.

                so you can do exactly what you want. But it is probably pointless
                Last edited by ASB; 6 April 2015, 11:30.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Alternative Investment

                  Originally posted by TykeMerc View Post
                  Hmm, where have we seen this kind of behaviour on the forum before?

                  A new poster asks a ludicrous question in the professional forums with an absurd scenario and ignores the sensible responses, I'm sure there's a familiar pattern to this.

                  In the minuscule chance that this is a real poster with a real question (about 1 in a billion on that) the answer is don't be so daft.
                  Hi TykeMerc
                  appears to me he has not ignored the sensible responses as he thanked all including myself. Obviously I supplied a comprehensive explanation which went beyond the original query, but isn't that what this forum is supposed to be about...helping one another and not just dissing them?

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by pmasoft View Post
                    Hi TykeMerc
                    appears to me he has not ignored the sensible responses as he thanked all including myself. Obviously I supplied a comprehensive explanation which went beyond the original query, but isn't that what this forum is supposed to be about...helping one another and not just dissing them?
                    Sockies asking implausible questions - generally the same question with a slightly different scenario each time - take bandwidth from real posters that have not been able to answer their legitimate questions with a bare minimum of research. So, when the questions are laughable, most around here will shoot first and ask questions later, and that's how it should be (especially if it encourages those that are, shall we say, genuinely challenged, to do a bare minimum of research first).

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
                      Sockies asking implausible questions - generally the same question with a slightly different scenario each time - take bandwidth from real posters that have not been able to answer their legitimate questions with a bare minimum of research. So, when the questions are laughable, most around here will shoot first and ask questions later, and that's how it should be (especially if it encourages those that are, shall we say, genuinely challenged, to do a bare minimum of research first).
                      OK fair enough, guess I just saw it as a query that warranted an explanation. End of the day guess we all want to minimise the tax take.

                      I have to ask and will probably get shot down for it...what is a sockie?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X