• 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!

Question about "alphabet shares"

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

    #11
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    For me it's back to the Arctic case but a slighly different reasoning.

    In the case of Arctic, income shifting is allowed for equal class of shares. On that basis income shifting different classes is not something tested and proven to be OK.
    This is basically my view too. Legal waffly explanation from a non lawyer below:

    It's rarely as simple as "is it legal or not". There's primary legislation, reams of it, that covers loads of different things. Inevitably you end up with some situations where one part of the legislation suggests X, another part suggests Y. This is where cases can end up going to Court, with taxpayer insisting X should apply, HMRC insisting Y should apply. A judge rules one way or the other, explaining their reasoning, and that forms case law. This then sets a precedent for identical situations, unless overruled by a higher court.

    Inevitably there will be situations where something is similar to a historic piece of case law, but not identical. This means you can't guarantee relying on the case law, as the facts are a bit different. Inevitably different advisers will have different views on what might then apply.

    A fairly key part of the Arctic Systems case was that the wife's shares were exactly the same as the husband's. Therefore legally she wasn't just being given a right to income, she also had legal voting rights no lower/different to his. It was no more his company than it was hers.

    By issuing different share classes to a spouse, by definition you're demonstrating you consider the shares one spouse owns to be different to those owned by the other spouse. I therefore don't see safety that it's bound by the decision in Arctic Systems.

    Others will take a different view, plus of course plenty of situations there will be something done that is "wrong", but they get away with it. Either because HMRC don't know, or perhaps HMRC do know but don't have the resources to pursue.

    Comment


      #12
      Many thanks for all your replies. I'm generally a risk averse person but I want to make a well-reasoned decision.

      The most interesting point is when the Arctic Systems decision is brought up. For example:

      A fairly key part of the Arctic Systems case was that the wife's shares were exactly the same as the husband's. Therefore legally she wasn't just being given a right to income, she also had legal voting rights no lower/different to his. It was no more his company than it was hers.
      If multiple classes of ordinary share classes are created with the same exact rights, is the difference substantial enough for precedent not to apply? They are different but the rest of quoted statement still applies. This seems to be the view in this article on AccountingWEB.

      I don't intend for the company to pay different rates but reserving the flexibility is attractive. I'll reach out to another accountant to get an opinion and then make a decision.

      Once again, thank you for your thoughts.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by concord View Post
        Many thanks for all your replies. I'm generally a risk averse person but I want to make a well-reasoned decision.

        The most interesting point is when the Arctic Systems decision is brought up. For example:



        If multiple classes of ordinary share classes are created with the same exact rights, is the difference substantial enough for precedent not to apply? They are different but the rest of quoted statement still applies. This seems to be the view in this article on AccountingWEB.

        I don't intend for the company to pay different rates but reserving the flexibility is attractive. I'll reach out to another accountant to get an opinion and then make a decision.

        Once again, thank you for your thoughts.
        OK, but ask one who properly understands Arctic and its implications. And think about why you would need flexibility - you can, if necessary (and I struggle to see why in your position), change the share split with very little effort at any time
        Blog? What blog...?

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by concord View Post
          If multiple classes of ordinary share classes are created with the same exact rights, is the difference substantial enough for precedent not to apply? They are different but the rest of quoted statement still applies. This seems to be the view in this article on AccountingWEB.
          Yes - only 1 model has been tested where shares of the same class have been used.

          Shares of different classes open up an entire world of research and tax tribunals for you to investigate, you may want to look at the tax tribunal cases where dividends have been wavered to see why HMRC dislike them so much.
          merely at clientco for the entertainment

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by malvolio View Post
            And think about why you would need flexibility - you can, if necessary (and I struggle to see why in your position), change the share split with very little effort at any time
            How can this be done?

            Say my spouse decides that when the children are older that she wants to return to work. In time it may not make sense for her to be a director and shareholder any longer. This is the only reason why I am considering alphabet shares.

            Thanks.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by concord View Post
              How can this be done?

              Say my spouse decides that when the children are older that she wants to return to work. In time it may not make sense for her to be a director and shareholder any longer. This is the only reason why I am considering alphabet shares.

              Thanks.
              You pay dividends out in whatever ratio you want to apply from that point on. On your annual Companies House return you update the shareholding record (or do it immediately if you want). Works in both directions.

              And you don't have to be a director (or any other officer of the company) to be a shareholder.
              Blog? What blog...?

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by concord View Post
                How can this be done?

                Say my spouse decides that when the children are older that she wants to return to work. In time it may not make sense for her to be a director and shareholder any longer. This is the only reason why I am considering alphabet shares.

                Thanks.
                So buy the shares back off her. Fill in a form detailing the adjustment of shares and away you go.
                Better still get your accountant to do it.

                Just don't do it regularly to attract any unwanted attention.
                'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by concord View Post
                  In time it may not make sense for her to be a director and shareholder any longer. This is the only reason why I am considering alphabet shares.
                  You might want to ask your adviser about example 3 "alphabet soup" here: ERSM60030 - Employment Related Securities Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK When you do, ask them what the highest marginal tax rate is (bearing in mind s222).

                  Comment


                    #19
                    So she can gift the shares back if she wants to? I did ask the solicitor if this was possible as one off in the future and he said it was. If this is feasible then there is no reason to create an additional share class.

                    Originally posted by Iliketax View Post
                    You might want to ask your adviser about example 3 "alphabet soup".
                    The example says that "the shares have no rights other than that the employer can award dividends at his discretion." That is a different scenario and all advice and articles clearly state the ordinary shares must have the same rights.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by concord View Post
                      So she can gift the shares back if she wants to? I did ask the solicitor if this was possible as one off in the future and he said it was. If this is feasible then there is no reason to create an additional share class.
                      Yes but be-careful with gifting. They should really be sold back at a reasonable price but feck knows what that is.

                      And yes, there is no reason to create the different class.

                      But if this is making your head spin with joy and loads of dubious situations are coming to mind then don't. It has to be done properly and carefully.
                      Last edited by Contractor UK; 28 June 2020, 11:25.
                      'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X