• 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!

Alphabet Shares - Confused

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

    Alphabet Shares - Confused

    Afternoon All,

    Before I delve into my rather complicated question, I think a brief history would help set the scene. Back in 2013 I decided I want to start building up a company that would offer various 'Managed Hosted Solutions' to customers. This was setup as a LTD, with a 50/50 share structure between myself and my business partner. It was decided that I would go into Contracting to build up the relevant capital and pay myself with a mix of salary/dividends (although no where near to the 75% or so take home some people are able to get). Whenever I received a dividend, my business partner waived his right to his own. These have been marked as part of the directors meetings.

    We are now at a point when we have the relevant capital to start the original business idea. Due to timings and other circumstances, I have decided to keep contracting by seperating the two business units into two different LTDs. We have decided to pay each other a dividend (50% each of the required capital) and start a new business. This way, I get to keep hold of other reserves in the contracting business and have the accounts for year one (which helps )

    Everything within that makes sense. I have asked my business partner if he can carry on doing the accounts for my contracting and he has talked about implementing an Alphabet share structure. This is where I get confused. I wondered if you lovely people could please shed some light on the setup, and anything we both need to be aware off?

    The suggestion is to create a B class share which is worth 5%, and a fixed dividend paid per month (as long as profits are met). What does this actually mean from an ownership/capital point of view?
    1) If I was to fold the contracting business (if the new business takes off), would he be entitled to 5% of whatever is left within the business?
    2) If I were to sell on the contracting side (unlikely I know), but would there be a different price for the B class shares?
    3) Is there anything else we should be aware off?



    Thanks in advance,

    Paul
    Last edited by slice16; 5 June 2014, 14:00.
    Kind Regards,

    Paul

    #2
    Have you thought about asking a professional these questions?
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
      Have you thought about asking a professional these questions?
      Why would he do that when he could ask a bunch of random strangers?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by aoxomoxoa View Post
        Why would he do that when he could ask a bunch of random strangers?
        Good point well made. Silly me.
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
          Have you thought about asking a professional these questions?
          +1. You really need an accountant when doing stuff like this to avoid things like Tribunal rules dividend waiver was settlement | AccountingWEB
          merely at clientco for the entertainment

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by eek View Post
            +1. You really need an accountant when doing stuff like this to avoid things like Tribunal rules dividend waiver was settlement | AccountingWEB
            I wouldn't have thought OP would need to worry about that unless their business partner is also their spouse/civil partner.

            They definitely need professional advice though.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
              I wouldn't have thought OP would need to worry about that unless their business partner is also their spouse/civil partner.

              They definitely need professional advice though.
              Don't bet on that. The issue hmrc dislikes is any time when the total potential dividend is greater than distributable profits. The other recent examples aren't related to spouses
              merely at clientco for the entertainment

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by eek View Post
                Don't bet on that. The issue hmrc dislikes is any time when the total potential dividend is greater than distributable profits. The other recent examples aren't related to spouses
                Indeed and it may be fine but he certainly wants to avoid an investigation while HMRC satisfy themselves all is well.
                'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by eek View Post
                  Don't bet on that. The issue hmrc dislikes is any time when the total potential dividend is greater than distributable profits. The other recent examples aren't related to spouses
                  Sure, I appreciate that, but that alone wouldn't be enough for them to win a settlements case - it would be indicative of there being an element of bounty however which is what would open up the challenge in the first place. But the waiver still has to be between spouses or civil partners for the legislation to apply, generally (otherwise the dividend needs to be payable to or benefit the person who waived the dividend in some way).

                  TSEM4220 - Settlements legislation: about dividend waivers (last paragraph)

                  If this wasn't the case, then pretty much any dividend waiver would be caught but that's not the case.

                  It does raise the question of whether or not there is a legal requirement for the company to have enough funds to cover the full dividend, including the waived amount, in a more general sense (completely aside from the settlements issue). Do you know which recent cases didn't apply to spouses? The most recent case I'm aware of that HMRC won was the Donovan & McClaren case, which again was lost due to the waivers benefitting the director's wives.
                  Last edited by TheCyclingProgrammer; 5 June 2014, 15:31.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
                    Sure, I appreciate that, but that alone wouldn't be enough for them to win a settlements case - it would be indicative of there being an element of bounty however which is what would open up the challenge in the first place. But the waiver still has to be between spouses or civil partners for the legislation to apply, generally (otherwise the dividend needs to be payable to or benefit the person who waived the dividend in some way).

                    TSEM4220 - Settlements legislation: about dividend waivers (last paragraph)

                    If this wasn't the case, then pretty much any dividend waiver would be caught but that's not the case.

                    It does raise the question of whether or not there is a legal requirement for the company to have enough funds to cover the full dividend, including the waived amount, in a more general sense (completely aside from the settlements issue). Do you know which recent cases didn't apply to spouses? The most recent case I'm aware of that HMRC won was the Donovan & McClaren case, which again was lost due to the waivers benefitting the director's wives.
                    The other one is family related where it was deemed that the father was in control of all the funds.. I can't remember the exact name off the top of my head...
                    merely at clientco for the entertainment

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X