Discussion
Two q's ...
1. If I don't know who was driving a company vehicle (that more than one person had access to on the day of an offence) what would I need to show to prove there is no way of us ascertaining this info?
2. If NIP was the third, or fourth, how/when does the safe driving course come into play?
P.
1. If I don't know who was driving a company vehicle (that more than one person had access to on the day of an offence) what would I need to show to prove there is no way of us ascertaining this info?
2. If NIP was the third, or fourth, how/when does the safe driving course come into play?
P.
EU_Foreigner said:
That is what I thought, but appearantly not. If the Ltd is put "on trial", there can only be a fine (usually about 300 or so). Only in exceptional circumstances will there be anything more.
Ltd company just to register your cars anybody?
Given how easy it is to set up and maintain a Ltd co I have considered this however there are two issues: Ltd company just to register your cars anybody?
1. If I use a new or existing Ltd co to own my car then I have a company car = taxation issues.
2. If you set up a shell company for this purpose then There is still the issue of :
"So you can't tell the court who was driving the car. Just remind me how many employees does this company have Mr Johnson?"
"Errrmmmm it's a shell company, with one employee - me."
"What trade does this company engage in? and who are the shareholders?"
"Mmmmm well no trade really it just holds this vehicle. I'm the only shareholder."
"Ah I see so actually it is a vehicle set up by you to avoid prosecution for traffic offences? Please can you drop your trousers in preparation for a right good shafting from the magisterate (once I wake the senile old duffer up and make him understand what you have just admitted to)."
djohnson said:
Given how easy it is to set up and maintain a Ltd co I have considered this however there are two issues:
1. If I use a new or existing Ltd co to own my car then I have a company car = taxation issues.
Does the RK and owner have to be one and the same?1. If I use a new or existing Ltd co to own my car then I have a company car = taxation issues.
Edited by esselte on Monday 17th September 12:48
esselte said:
djohnson said:
Given how easy it is to set up and maintain a Ltd co I have considered this however there are two issues:
1. If I use a new or existing Ltd co to own my car then I have a company car = taxation issues.
Does the RK and owner have to be one and the same?1. If I use a new or existing Ltd co to own my car then I have a company car = taxation issues.
Edited by esselte on Monday 17th September 12:48
Edited by djohnson on Monday 17th September 13:10
1. The RK does not have to be the owner.
2. If registered to a Ltd Co. as keeper, that does not confer any tax liabilities on the Ltd. Co. if the owner is not the RK.
3. If the registered address of the Ltd. Co. is a P.O. Box number, that is quite legal.
4. The Company Secretary can be a third party Ltd. Co. or an accountancy firm.
2. If registered to a Ltd Co. as keeper, that does not confer any tax liabilities on the Ltd. Co. if the owner is not the RK.
3. If the registered address of the Ltd. Co. is a P.O. Box number, that is quite legal.
4. The Company Secretary can be a third party Ltd. Co. or an accountancy firm.
Cooperman said:
2. If registered to a Ltd Co. as keeper, that does not confer any tax liabilities on the Ltd. Co. if the owner is not the RK.
The reference was to company car tax levied on the individual rather than to corporation tax levied on the Ltd company (indeed any CT impact on the company would likely be a benefit arising from claiming capital allowances for the car). Like I say above I am not confident that the RK v owner argument would be enough to satsify HMRC that there is no taxable company car benefit. If it was I am pretty such someone would have expolited this in a tax planning scheme before now. Whilst I am a chartered accountant I am not a personal tax expert. Where is Eric Mc when you need him? Having said that as you rightly point out in your other points if the tax issue could be resolved then there might be something in this scheme.
Edited by djohnson on Monday 17th September 13:11
Edited by djohnson on Monday 17th September 13:12
djohnson said:
Cooperman said:
2. If registered to a Ltd Co. as keeper, that does not confer any tax liabilities on the Ltd. Co. if the owner is not the RK.
The reference was to company car tax levied on the individual rather than to corporation tax levied on the Ltd company (indeed any CT impact on the company would likely be a benefit arising from claiming capital allowances for the car). Like I say above I am not confident that the RK v owner argument would be enough to satsify HMRC that there is no taxable company car benefit. If it was I am pretty such someone would have expolited this in a tax planning scheme before now. Whilst I am a chartered accountant I am not a personal tax expert. Where is Eric Mc when you need him? Having said that as you rightly point out in your other points if the tax issue could be resolved then there might be something in this scheme.
The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the legal owner.
The HMRC may not infer anything from this. The legal owner is the individual or entity that paid the invoice for the car same as any other asset. A company car may be used by someone daily from home to work and to travel for work. The car will be treated as a taxable benefit. A pool car may be used by more than one employee and used for travel from work. in this case there is no taxable benefit. But if it is taken to someones home from time to time, he too will be considered in receipt of a taxable benefit. Of course if it happens a few times the HMRC won't know but..... they do put an inordinate effort into catchning people out don't they !. In each case the Registered Keeper may be a limited company or a lease company or one of the directors of the limited company. In the latter case registering the car in an individual's name holds up the resale value of the car over say "Major UK Car Hire Co" as Registered Keeper. In this case no taxable benefit can apply to that individual as he/she does not have use of it.
Its who uses it that matters not who owns it.
Edited by djohnson on Monday 17th September 13:11
Edited by djohnson on Monday 17th September 13:12
Thinking further there's nothing to stop a company having a Ferrari or something as a 'pool car' on which no taxable benefit would fall so long as it is used exclusively for business by more than one person, when not being used it stays at the business premises and the company can think of some reason why Ferrari or something makes a suitable 'pool car'.
Richard C said:
Stuff and
Its who uses it that matters not who owns it.[\quote]
It does matter who owns the car. If a company owns it and I use it then I have a potential taxable benefit. If I own it and I use it then I can have no taxable benefit arising directly from the use of the car.
Its who uses it that matters not who owns it.[\quote]
It does matter who owns the car. If a company owns it and I use it then I have a potential taxable benefit. If I own it and I use it then I can have no taxable benefit arising directly from the use of the car.
Edited by djohnson on Monday 17th September 13:11
Edited by djohnson on Monday 17th September 13:12
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff