Striking off a company

reader

Hi

Relatively simple situation of a company (sole director/shareholder) who wants to wind up her company after 10 months of poor trade: loss of around £1-2K. There are no fixed assets, creditors (apart from DLA), VAT or PAYE schemes in place.

Is the process just as simple as completing the CoHo striking off form- will HMRC Corp Tax try and object against the striking off?

Thanks

Dcollins

If there's no tax owed it'll be fine. They will need to file accounts and a CT return for the trading period, though.

reader

Dcollins wrote: »

If there's no tax owed it'll be fine. They will need to file accounts and a CT return for the trading period, though.

Thanks

villapb

Lately i have being contacting ct in Norfolk and Glasgow regarding dormant companies and situatons such as your clients. I find now i never ring just write in the first instance and then go from there.

Reader this is what i would do,, i would write to the ct area for the client informing them they want to dissolve, ask if a ct600 still needs to be done, because too mainly show no liabilities, hmrc are only concerned about themsleves.

If you and client know there isnt any liablilities then send a DSO1 WITH £10, and start the process of stike off. CCH will put out an advert in London Gazzette and if hmrc don,t object then it will dissolve, takes a while say a few months to process.

Hmrc may say they still want a ct600 done, ive got 2 at the moment im waiting a response, also make sure the client if insolvent has ceased trading as wrongful trading can bite back. They have only being trading 10 months you have plenty of time, check online services to see what hmrc have for the accounting period.

Lately i find writing to hmrc works wonders as it can be very heplful, i tell them the circumstances and ask what they would like me to do, you will be surprised what they come back with.

reader

villapb wrote: »

Lately i have being contacting ct in Norfolk and Glasgow regarding dormant companies and situatons such as your clients. I find now i never ring just write in the first instance and then go from there.

Reader this is what i would do,, i would write to the ct area for the client informing them they want to dissolve, ask if a ct600 still needs to be done, because too mainly show no liabilities, hmrc are only concerned about themsleves.

If you and client know there isnt any liablilities then send a DSO1 WITH £10, and start the process of stike off. CCH will put out an advert in London Gazzette and if hmrc don,t object then it will dissolve, takes a while say a few months to process.

Hmrc may say they still want a ct600 done, ive got 2 at the moment im waiting a response, also make sure the client if insolvent has ceased trading as wrongful trading can bite back. They have only being trading 10 months you have plenty of time, check online services to see what hmrc have for the accounting period.

Lately i find writing to hmrc works wonders as it can be very heplful, i tell them the circumstances and ask what they would like me to do, you will be surprised what they come back with.

.

Thanks, Villa

JodieR

I agree with Villapb - I wrote to HMRC a couple of times last year enclosing a simple P&L showing that there were no profits and therefore no tax due. I warned clients that they may come back and insit on a CT600 but they didn't on either occasion.

reader

JodieR wrote: »

I agree with Villapb - I wrote to HMRC a couple of times last year enclosing a simple P&L showing that there were no profits and therefore no tax due. I warned clients that they may come back and insit on a CT600 but they didn't on either occasion.

Thanks, jodie

villapb

I have noticed that if a company hasn,t done a CT41G repsonse and does a strike off before the annual return was due, hmrc dont object due to thinking not worth objecting, but if a CT41G is done, hmrc think there maybe trading profit so object....so seems unfair tbh.

JodieR

If a CT41G hasn't been submitted then the company presumably wasn't trading and therefore there's no chance of them owing tax and therefore HMRC would have no reason to object.
If a company has been trading then the CT41G should have been submitted, and therefore HMRC have reason to believe that profits may have been generated and therefore you need to do as has been suggested and write to them to let them know that the company has made a loss and is not due to pay any tax.
I don't see what you find unfair about it?

villapb

Jodie so do you think, that a company who is trading but testing the water, dodges responsibilites, sees how it goes, will complete a CT41G, THEN walks away a lot easier then ................ a company who is doing its best but its not working, carries out its responsibilities.

Whats unfair is the bad guys have a easier life then the good guys, because they "aint bothered".

You wrote, If a CT41G hasn't been submitted then the company presumably wasn't trading and therefore there's no chance of them owing tax and therefore HMRC would have no reason to object. So what do the bad guys do......they say whats a CT41G, never saw one, never arrived in post, thought accountant did all that etc, etc.....

In my experience what they should do, isn,t always what they do............the system isnt unfair but how its played is.

JodieR

If a company is set up, 'tests the water' without notifying HMRC that it's trading, makes a loss and closes then the only rule they've broken is not completeing the CT41G and all they've saved themselves is the hassle of writing a letter to HMRC informing them of the loss. Personally I'd save the 'Bad Guys' term for more serious offences. All a bit of a moot point if you ask me.

villapb

ok, so the good guys complete the CT41G and the hassle of writing a letter a letter also, the bad guys walk away hassle free.

Might seem a moot point to you, but have you run a business and the gone through the stress of a failing one, if you have then, not such a moot pont if you ask me.

So your saying one rule for one and another rule for another, seems unethical to me.

villapb

ps bad guys break rule no matter what size of the offence, good guys obey the rule no matter the size of the rule.........if you ask me, last post on subject.

deanshepherd

You have 2 companies, both loss-making, both with no tax to pay, one completed CT41G, one didn't, both eventually struck off and you refer to one as the 'good guys' and one as the 'bad guys'?

Strange.

villapb

It was just a fiqure of speech....................the good guy was for real and wanted to do well and failed, the bad guy was just playing the system and didnt care in my experience, nowt strange about it.
Also how do you know the bad guy is loss making with no tax to pay , he dont tell anyone and walks away after making money and starts another company.
Its seems you have all missed my point so im taking a break from here now.....................