Who 'owns' the Company

castle96

3 sons voting against their father... aint going to happen

masonic

castle96 wrote: »

3 sons voting against their father... aint going to happen

Are these people brainwashed? Father has taken back what's rightfully theirs and giving it to people by your account they don't like. I'd do it in a heartbeat if my father did that to me, to teach him a lesson.

You only need one of the three to feel likewise.

Edit: what I suspect is really happening here is that the father owns the whole company and is using his family members as mules for the purposes of tax evasion. Perhaps this years dividend is higher than usual, so he needs the shares to be divided up between more of them to stay below the tax free allowance.

castle96

CAN he (he HAS) do what he has done. Is It 'legal'.
Companies House has an electronically filed confirmation statement on file. Looking at it now. He has diminished A C's holding. He may have had a 'meeting' with A B C to agree. Would he need 'paperwork' to confirm this.He is always fiddling around like this. He deliberately missplells 3 of the 5 with one letter (in middle)wrong (why)

masonic

castle96 wrote: »

CAN he (he HAS) do what he has done. Is It 'legal'.
Companies House has an electronically filed confirmation statement on file. Looking at it now. He has diminished A C's holding. He may have had a 'meeting' with A B C to agree. Would he need 'paperwork' to confirm this.He is always fiddling around like this. He deliberately missplells 3 of the 5 with one letter (in middle)wrong (why)

Yes it is legal for him to agree with the other shareholders to dilute so that new shareholders can come onboard. However, as per my edit above, the reason for this change is probably illegal. I'd suggest your sons want no part in it and should dispute their shareholding, unless they get a satisfactory, plausible and lawful explanation of what is going on.

castle96

Edit: what I suspect is really happening here is that the father owns the whole company and is using his family members as mules for the purposes of tax evasion. Perhaps this years dividend is higher than usual, so he needs the shares to be divided up between more of them to stay below the tax free allowance

I don't know how to 'read' accounts (looking at his latest now. But there is no mention of dividends/salary to director F. Would dividends be shown in the accounts ?

masonic

castle96 wrote: »

I don't know how to 'read' accounts (looking at his latest now. But there is no mention of dividends/salary to director F. Would dividends be shown in the accounts ?

It depends on the size of the company. Does it publish accounts?

DE_612183

masonic wrote: »

Are these people brainwashed? Father has taken back what's rightfully theirs and giving it to people by your account they don't like. I'd do it in a heartbeat if my father did that to me, to teach him a lesson.

You only need one of the three to feel likewise.

Edit: what I suspect is really happening here is that the father owns the whole company and is using his family members as mules for the purposes of tax evasion. Perhaps this years dividend is higher than usual, so he needs the shares to be divided up between more of them to stay below the tax free allowance.

It's not evasion - it's avoidance and perfectly legal ( the former isn't ).

I avoid paying tax by using my personal allowance ( as do most of the working population )

There is also no tax benefit unless the company pays dividends - until that point it's just the companies money.

Thrugelmir

Aquamania wrote: »

They are only worth what someone else is willing to pay.

Not to the HMRC it isn't. Your approach is how people dig themselves a rather large hole.

castle96

Edit: what I suspect is really happening here is that the father owns the whole company and is using his family members as mules for the purposes of tax evasion. Perhaps this years dividend is higher than usual, so he needs the shares to be divided up between more of them to stay below the tax free allowance

I don't know how to 'read' accounts (looking at his latest now. But there is no mention of dividends/salary to director F. Would dividends be shown in the accounts ?

If he were to die tomorrow, his estate gets no benefit from this Coy ? 100% is owned by A-E, ie D E benefit (good for them)

Avoidance ?? Evasion ??

The father F IS the Company. Lock/stock....

masonic

Dave46049 wrote: »

It's not evasion - it's avoidance and perfectly legal ( the former isn't ).

I avoid paying tax by using my personal allowance ( as do most of the working population )

There is also no tax benefit unless the company pays dividends - until that point it's just the companies money.

It certainly is evasion if the father is funnelling his dividends through his sons to use their dividend allowance instead of paying tax at his marginal rate.