Buying Co. assets - any limitations on what I can buy? Buying Co. assets - any limitations on what I can buy? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    38,879

    Default

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

  2. #12

    Super poster

    Scruff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Leafy Surrey (Lahndahn Tahn)
    Posts
    2,735

    Default

    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...
    QDOS Referral Code http://www.qdoscontractor.com/code/QCL26507

    I was an IPSE Consultative Council Member, until the BoD abolished it. I have resigned my IPSE Membership from 4 June, 2019. IPSEXit.

  3. #13

    Default

    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.

  4. #14

    Super poster

    tractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Berks
    Posts
    3,518

    Default

    Quote 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

  5. #15

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Thanks to all for advice, especially pmasoft.

    LeCyclist

  6. #16

    Banned


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    8,066

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #17

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    5,451

    Default

    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; 6th April 2015 at 11:30.

  8. #18

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Wherever I lay my hat
    Posts
    60

    Default Alternative Investment

    Quote 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?

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote 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).

  10. #20

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Wherever I lay my hat
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote 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?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •