Pay off mortgage with dividends???
Discussion
rockin said:
IMO this finance forum is a very useful aspect of PH. For the most part it contains contributions from three types of participant,
Anyone who spends a bit of time and effort to follow this forum should be able to navigate the alien world of finance without getting caught up in the dodgy end of the business and without paying fat fees for general knowledge dressed up as "bespoke financial advice". Some people do need bespoke advice and paying for it may deliver excellent value for money. But not everybody does need it and that's where real benefit can be gained from this forum - deciding whether advice is needed and what to do if it's not.
I've learnt a lot from Julian PH, from Derek Chevalier, from EricMC, from Sidicks and from many others. They are all different, all knowledgeable and always worth reading.
Hi Rockin. Completely agree. I’ve also learnt a lot from Julian. Happy to hear everyone’s suggestions and try and wade through the good and bad. - Those who know a fair bit about finance and are willing to share their knowledge in a straightforward way
- Those who don't know as much about finance and are here to learn
- Those who don't know and don't want to know.... Quite why this third category feels the need to be here I'm never quite sure.
Anyone who spends a bit of time and effort to follow this forum should be able to navigate the alien world of finance without getting caught up in the dodgy end of the business and without paying fat fees for general knowledge dressed up as "bespoke financial advice". Some people do need bespoke advice and paying for it may deliver excellent value for money. But not everybody does need it and that's where real benefit can be gained from this forum - deciding whether advice is needed and what to do if it's not.
I've learnt a lot from Julian PH, from Derek Chevalier, from EricMC, from Sidicks and from many others. They are all different, all knowledgeable and always worth reading.
I wouldn’t make a decision off the back of an internet discussion, but it gives me ideas of avenues to explore and do my own investigations and due diligence.
JapanRed said:
Hi Julian.
Could you expand on this? My wife is already a shareholder and I already give her dividends. I plan to give her about £50k and myself £20k before April 5th. And can then fo the same after April. Is this what you mean?
Hi RobCould you expand on this? My wife is already a shareholder and I already give her dividends. I plan to give her about £50k and myself £20k before April 5th. And can then fo the same after April. Is this what you mean?
I am not an accountant, but was putting forward the not unreasonable concept that you and your wife may be able to dispose of part of your business interests (the shares, in this case) to the other in exchange for a capital lump sum (rather than taking out an income which is taxed as such).
The question is would the new shareholder be able to use the funds now in their control to pay for this. If so (I cannot see any reason why not, but this is not my area of expertise) then the payment from the business would not be liable for income tax, but be liable for capital gains tax (20%) and potentially recieve the Entrepreneur Relief rate, dropping this to just 10%.
I've called my accountant regarding this (but it is a Saturday afternoon, so I am not expecting to hear back until Monday) but it appears to work in principle. Eric could give a definitive answer if he is about...
I was just floating an idea that may have legs.
Cheers
Julian
JulianPH said:
JapanRed said:
Hi Julian.
Could you expand on this? My wife is already a shareholder and I already give her dividends. I plan to give her about £50k and myself £20k before April 5th. And can then fo the same after April. Is this what you mean?
Hi RobCould you expand on this? My wife is already a shareholder and I already give her dividends. I plan to give her about £50k and myself £20k before April 5th. And can then fo the same after April. Is this what you mean?
I am not an accountant, but was putting forward the not unreasonable concept that you and your wife may be able to dispose of part of your business interests (the shares, in this case) to the other in exchange for a capital lump sum (rather than taking out an income which is taxed as such).
The question is would the new shareholder be able to use the funds now in their control to pay for this. If so (I cannot see any reason why not, but this is not my area of expertise) then the payment from the business would not be liable for income tax, but be liable for capital gains tax (20%) and potentially recieve the Entrepreneur Relief rate, dropping this to just 10%.
I've called my accountant regarding this (but it is a Saturday afternoon, so I am not expecting to hear back until Monday) but it appears to work in principle. Eric could give a definitive answer if he is about...
I was just floating an idea that may have legs.
Cheers
Julian
Thanks again
JulianPH said:
Hi Rob
I am not an accountant, but was putting forward the not unreasonable concept that you and your wife may be able to dispose of part of your business interests (the shares, in this case) to the other in exchange for a capital lump sum (rather than taking out an income which is taxed as such).
The question is would the new shareholder be able to use the funds now in their control to pay for this. If so (I cannot see any reason why not, but this is not my area of expertise) then the payment from the business would not be liable for income tax, but be liable for capital gains tax (20%) and potentially recieve the Entrepreneur Relief rate, dropping this to just 10%.
I've called my accountant regarding this (but it is a Saturday afternoon, so I am not expecting to hear back until Monday) but it appears to work in principle. Eric could give a definitive answer if he is about...
I was just floating an idea that may have legs.
Cheers
Julian
No idea how that works. A sale of shares to each other is exempt. But how do you propose money is taken out of the company? I am not an accountant, but was putting forward the not unreasonable concept that you and your wife may be able to dispose of part of your business interests (the shares, in this case) to the other in exchange for a capital lump sum (rather than taking out an income which is taxed as such).
The question is would the new shareholder be able to use the funds now in their control to pay for this. If so (I cannot see any reason why not, but this is not my area of expertise) then the payment from the business would not be liable for income tax, but be liable for capital gains tax (20%) and potentially recieve the Entrepreneur Relief rate, dropping this to just 10%.
I've called my accountant regarding this (but it is a Saturday afternoon, so I am not expecting to hear back until Monday) but it appears to work in principle. Eric could give a definitive answer if he is about...
I was just floating an idea that may have legs.
Cheers
Julian
Very few ways of getting capital treatment. They include certain liquidations and certain share buy backs.
Edited by Alpinestars on Saturday 19th January 16:54
JapanRed said:
rockin said:
IMO this finance forum is a very useful aspect of PH. For the most part it contains contributions from three types of participant,
Anyone who spends a bit of time and effort to follow this forum should be able to navigate the alien world of finance without getting caught up in the dodgy end of the business and without paying fat fees for general knowledge dressed up as "bespoke financial advice". Some people do need bespoke advice and paying for it may deliver excellent value for money. But not everybody does need it and that's where real benefit can be gained from this forum - deciding whether advice is needed and what to do if it's not.
I've learnt a lot from Julian PH, from Derek Chevalier, from EricMC, from Sidicks and from many others. They are all different, all knowledgeable and always worth reading.
Hi Rockin. Completely agree. I’ve also learnt a lot from Julian. Happy to hear everyone’s suggestions and try and wade through the good and bad. - Those who know a fair bit about finance and are willing to share their knowledge in a straightforward way
- Those who don't know as much about finance and are here to learn
- Those who don't know and don't want to know.... Quite why this third category feels the need to be here I'm never quite sure.
Anyone who spends a bit of time and effort to follow this forum should be able to navigate the alien world of finance without getting caught up in the dodgy end of the business and without paying fat fees for general knowledge dressed up as "bespoke financial advice". Some people do need bespoke advice and paying for it may deliver excellent value for money. But not everybody does need it and that's where real benefit can be gained from this forum - deciding whether advice is needed and what to do if it's not.
I've learnt a lot from Julian PH, from Derek Chevalier, from EricMC, from Sidicks and from many others. They are all different, all knowledgeable and always worth reading.
I wouldn’t make a decision off the back of an internet discussion, but it gives me ideas of avenues to explore and do my own investigations and due diligence.
I agree completely, and your own words also carry a great deal of well deserved weight. I would also add DonkeyApple and PurpleMoonlight (when he is in a good mood!
) to this list.There are not many questions that cannot be answered here providing you can filter out the noise from some contributors.
I think this is something unique on the internet but, as you say, some digging is often required to sort the wheat from the chaff.
There are knowledgeable people here who are happy to give their time for free and for no financial gain. That should be applauded and is a reason why I sponsored this thread after the CarGurus takeover.
JapanRed said:
Hi selma,
Thanks for the comments. To answer a few of them:
Yes I know it’s a poor example of a BTL. If I was a professional landlord I would’ve bought 4 terraced houses for the price I paid for this house (£185k I think). Truth is I’m an accidental landlord. I bought that house 10yrs who with my ex and when we split up I rented it out. I couldn’t sell at the time as I was in negative equity and only earned £30k a year. For the first few years as a landlord I made a loss!!! I absolutely could (and maybe should?) now sell it and could buy a few cheaper houses to increase ROI. I guess the reason I’ve not is because I’m just not convinced it’s worth the hassle.
I’ve considered buying a few properties as you have noted, but have yet to pull the trigger as I’ve had a bit of hassle with tenants and being a landlord, whilst not terrible, has occasionally been a bit of a ball ache.
I’ve dropped on my feet with this business and it’s better financially if I use my spare time to pursue this rather than make money through being a landlord. I can earn £3000 a week in my business whereas landlording is more stressful and less money.
I do indeed appreciate the straight talking ;-)
I’m 34 not 33 :-)
My business is very niche and works a bit like contracting. So I could sell up and get entrepreneurs relief and still work, but I would end up paying more tax through an umbrella company.
(Sorry I’ve not mentioned all this before. Didn’t want this to become my life story and didn’t want to look like I was bragging about income. It’s more luck than judgement that my company earns what it earns).
On a side note, you say you know what you would do with the money at my age. What would you have me do with the money at 34? I’ve got a 911 as a weekend car. Just sold my F80 M3. Toyed with getting a McLaren but honestly can’t bring myself to spend that much of my daughters inheritance on a car, especially when I have 2 mortgages.
I’ve dabbled I’m terribly expensive watches (paid £8.5k for a snoopy that shot to £20k that I now daren't wear as it’s too expensive). We don’t live a flash life. In fact we live on about £70k a year which although is a lot doesn’t reflect the £250k we earned from all sources in the last 12 months.
Well I have to say you come across as a pretty down to earth and straightforward sort of bloke, but a fair number of the things you say don't make any sense to me . Not that this means they aren't sensible, it means they don't make any sense ...to ME.Thanks for the comments. To answer a few of them:
Yes I know it’s a poor example of a BTL. If I was a professional landlord I would’ve bought 4 terraced houses for the price I paid for this house (£185k I think). Truth is I’m an accidental landlord. I bought that house 10yrs who with my ex and when we split up I rented it out. I couldn’t sell at the time as I was in negative equity and only earned £30k a year. For the first few years as a landlord I made a loss!!! I absolutely could (and maybe should?) now sell it and could buy a few cheaper houses to increase ROI. I guess the reason I’ve not is because I’m just not convinced it’s worth the hassle.
I’ve considered buying a few properties as you have noted, but have yet to pull the trigger as I’ve had a bit of hassle with tenants and being a landlord, whilst not terrible, has occasionally been a bit of a ball ache.
I’ve dropped on my feet with this business and it’s better financially if I use my spare time to pursue this rather than make money through being a landlord. I can earn £3000 a week in my business whereas landlording is more stressful and less money.
I do indeed appreciate the straight talking ;-)
I’m 34 not 33 :-)
My business is very niche and works a bit like contracting. So I could sell up and get entrepreneurs relief and still work, but I would end up paying more tax through an umbrella company.
(Sorry I’ve not mentioned all this before. Didn’t want this to become my life story and didn’t want to look like I was bragging about income. It’s more luck than judgement that my company earns what it earns).
On a side note, you say you know what you would do with the money at my age. What would you have me do with the money at 34? I’ve got a 911 as a weekend car. Just sold my F80 M3. Toyed with getting a McLaren but honestly can’t bring myself to spend that much of my daughters inheritance on a car, especially when I have 2 mortgages.
I’ve dabbled I’m terribly expensive watches (paid £8.5k for a snoopy that shot to £20k that I now daren't wear as it’s too expensive). We don’t live a flash life. In fact we live on about £70k a year which although is a lot doesn’t reflect the £250k we earned from all sources in the last 12 months.
Edited by JapanRed on Saturday 19th January 16:11
I knew you were an accidental landlord. And it's good you understand that it's hardly the ideal btl. So why on earth you'd want to take good money from a totally different business and buy off its mortgage I cannot fathom! Think about it! If you just leave it as it is, one day it'll be paid off without you having to put a penny into it. Now, do you think you might be able to fund your retirement with, say, 20 of these. Or 50 of these. Or 1000 of these things that someone else buys for you? Or do you think that would be a problem?
Because if you think it WOULD be a problem then rather than pay off this flat's mortgage you should just sell it! Let's face it, it's making next to nothing, you don't need the income from it, the whole thing is a ball ache, and you could reduce the mortgage on your resi assuming you're comfy "investing" on what may well become a depreciating asset which no-one can tell.
I hear this "ball ache" thing quite often. Which is something else I don't really understand. Can I ask you, how do you think someone who owns, say, 100 rental units manages? Presumably you don't think they just endure 100 times the ball ache yours is.
And let me ask you something else. Would you work 20 hours a year extra at your PAYE job in exchange for doing NOTHING re. the management of your btl? Because you earn 60k for what? 1500 hours a year? So you earn £40 an hour. So 20 extra hours would cover the entire cost of a year's full management at 10%+vat.
The 'ball ache' then becomes finding a right good management company. And I agree that since The Great Humiliation every jackass and their adviser has become a letting agent, but that doesn't mean there aren't some excellent ones. There are. And do you know what they want? Your keys. And you as far away as possible from the property and them and the tenant and the management.
What do they know? Simple. They know that you want the best possible "bottom line" from your property. Because what they also know is that you (and all their clients) won't be slow to take their keys back if you don't get that "best bottom line".
Tax is another 'advice minefield'. Seriously. When I was young (and well-padded) my uber-posh lawyer cousin intro'd me to a mega international firm called Coopers and Lybrand. f
king fiasco whose uselssness got me a row from a Court of Session judge. That was followed by a big local firm. That very nearly ended in bloodshed. Proper and very real bloodshed. Then I got intro'd to the guy I've now had for more than 20 years, including a good period when he worked only for me. A proper crackpot who interprets tax law and regulation as he pleases. This results in inspections. And very occasionally in investigations. And even once an investigation at a serious level by the Criminal Investigation Unit (tho not a CoP9 and aimed at a civil recovery and not a criminal prosecution). That last one went on for SIX years!! Towards the end I actually accidentally made direct contact with the investigations director who'd spent years on the case. What a lovely guy! We resolved everything in a three hour phone call. Not that the resolution had anything very much if at all to do with tax rules and regulations. Basically he threatened that that WAS how it would be dealt with if we couldn't have resolution via "pragmatic negotiation" (his term). Pragmatic negotiation via investigation is now my way-to-go idea of how tax matters will be dealt with for the rest of my life. It ended - and you can believe this or disbelieve it, I care not - with me asking this really very pleasant chap how much he wanted me to pay? And he said a number. And I gasped and sucked air and said "well I was thinking more like xxxxx". And he was silent but only for a few seconds in that way you can tell they've done this a thousand times before and said...meet you in the middle! And that, my friend, was how my tax was assessed over the past 11 years! By the way, he wanted to investigate back 20 years but apparently they can only investigate back to the last investigation (2006). So my next investigation can only go back to 2017!
Of course there's a huge and in part very amusing back story to all this....but that's for another day.
Suffice to say that me and my crackpot accountant had a good chuckle over the findings, and apparently the way the resolution's been applied entitles me to a whopping rebate this year (and the wife too tho' she has hardly a clue about it all.
Tax?? Schmaxx! The best accountant's the one who perfectly legally gets you the lowest bill, however he does it.
JulianPH said:
Eric Mc said:
As long as it's legal, naturally.
That was my question. Can this work!Cheers Eric (and thank you).
Eric Mc said:
As long as it's legal, naturally.
There's also that fascinating No Man's Land where what's legal (or not technically ILlegal) may not be "right" but where "right" depends on interpretation. Thinking particularly of how being self employed or employed is defined and how the definitions are understood, especially when it involves directorial responsibility for issues arising at a long-dissolved company!At day's end I knew I'd a good chance at Tribunal and even felt HMRC knew their case was far from cut and dried and a foregone conclusion. But I got skewered in that scurrilous UK legal position where the certainty of the costs of successful defence plus the un-certainty of outcome made it more pragmatic to take a raping than risk death by full Bongo!
Edited by selmahoose on Sunday 20th January 00:01
I'm sorry if this sounds crass but if you are earning so much from your day job and side job why not just get proper financial advise from an accountant or something similar?
Surely they'll be able to advise you properly and the cost will be pennies compared to whatever interest you're paying at the moment on the btl
Surely they'll be able to advise you properly and the cost will be pennies compared to whatever interest you're paying at the moment on the btl
selmahoose said:
Eric Mc said:
As long as it's legal, naturally.
There's also that fascinating No Man's Land where what's legal may not be "right" but where "right" depends on interpretation. Thinking particularly of how being self employed or employed is defined and how the definitions are understood, especially when it involves directorial responsibility for issues arising at a long-dissolved company!At day's end I knew I'd a good chance at Tribunal and even felt HMRC knew their case was far from cut and dried and a foregone conclusion. But I got skewered in that scurrilous UK legal position where the certainty of the costs of successful defence plus the un-certainty of outcome made it more pragmatic to take a raping than risk death by full Bongo!
selmahoose said:
Eric Mc said:
As long as it's legal, naturally.
There's also that fascinating No Man's Land where what's legal (or not technically ILlegal) may not be "right" but where "right" depends on interpretation. Thinking particularly of how being self employed or employed is defined and how the definitions are understood, especially when it involves directorial responsibility for issues arising at a long-dissolved company!At day's end I knew I'd a good chance at Tribunal and even felt HMRC knew their case was far from cut and dried and a foregone conclusion. But I got skewered in that scurrilous UK legal position where the certainty of the costs of successful defence plus the un-certainty of outcome made it more pragmatic to take a raping than risk death by full Bongo!
Edited by selmahoose on Sunday 20th January 00:01
TheStigsWeeBrother said:
Does your accountant now work from offices in Dundee by any chance?
Nope always has and always will work from the same impossibly chaotic office in Glasgow. No doubt has or has had clients in Dundee 'tho'. In his professional capacity he is absolute havoc to deal with which causes innumerable problems and hassles. I call him 'The Devil'. Just happens to be really really good at 'edgy' accountancy. Great fees too. However after a particularly outrageous recent episode which involved a combined cop/customs raid at his office and the seizure of his (although not his clients') records and computers etc (all subsequently returned) his behaviour has been notably exemplary!
Won't last tho, but nobody cares. Everybody (including the authorities) likes him and in the end that's what's always 'got him by' so now he's in his late 60's no-one would want him to change anyway. A great shagger and cokehead back in the day. And, it must be said, for a wee baldy specky guy he's had some array of fine lookin' burdz.
Alpinestars said:
JulianPH said:
Eric Mc said:
As long as it's legal, naturally.
That was my question. Can this work!Cheers Eric (and thank you).
When you sell shares in a company you own it is a capital gains event (not income) and therefore the gain is taxed at 20% or, if ER is applicable) 10%.
The concept of deferred consideration establishes that payment for the sale of the shares can come directly from the company itself.
Therefore, if the OP sells shares to his wife, who in turn pays him for these shares using capital sat within the company she now controls this could mean him paying only 10% tax in accessing these funds.
Not being an accountant I am unaware if HMRC would accept this position so I advised the OP to speak to his accountant about this (and also asked Eric his thoughts as I highly value his expertise).
Does that make better sense?
Cheers
JulianPH said:
I'll try and explain it again:
When you sell shares in a company you own it is a capital gains event (not income) and therefore the gain is taxed at 20% or, if ER is applicable) 10%.
The concept of deferred consideration establishes that payment for the sale of the shares can come directly from the company itself.
Therefore, if the OP sells shares to his wife, who in turn pays him for these shares using capital sat within the company she now controls this could mean him paying only 10% tax in accessing these funds.
Not being an accountant I am unaware if HMRC would accept this position so I advised the OP to speak to his accountant about this (and also asked Eric his thoughts as I highly value his expertise).
Does that make better sense?
Cheers
Thanks. When you sell shares in a company you own it is a capital gains event (not income) and therefore the gain is taxed at 20% or, if ER is applicable) 10%.
The concept of deferred consideration establishes that payment for the sale of the shares can come directly from the company itself.
Therefore, if the OP sells shares to his wife, who in turn pays him for these shares using capital sat within the company she now controls this could mean him paying only 10% tax in accessing these funds.
Not being an accountant I am unaware if HMRC would accept this position so I advised the OP to speak to his accountant about this (and also asked Eric his thoughts as I highly value his expertise).
Does that make better sense?
Cheers
Do I understand what you’re saying - yes.
Does it make sense - no.
The sale of shares from OP to his wife (assuming that’s the scenario), would require his spouse to pay for the shares, whether now or at a later date. What you’re suggesting is that in order to pay for the shares, she can somehow access the money in the company and that it’ll all be treated as capital. She cannot access the money in the company in a form which makes extraction capital (save for some very specific fact patterns, eg some liquidations or some share buy back).
The flaw is that she has the obligation to pay. Not the company. Does that make sense?
Alpinestars said:
JulianPH said:
I'll try and explain it again:
When you sell shares in a company you own it is a capital gains event (not income) and therefore the gain is taxed at 20% or, if ER is applicable) 10%.
The concept of deferred consideration establishes that payment for the sale of the shares can come directly from the company itself.
Therefore, if the OP sells shares to his wife, who in turn pays him for these shares using capital sat within the company she now controls this could mean him paying only 10% tax in accessing these funds.
Not being an accountant I am unaware if HMRC would accept this position so I advised the OP to speak to his accountant about this (and also asked Eric his thoughts as I highly value his expertise).
Does that make better sense?
Cheers
Thanks. When you sell shares in a company you own it is a capital gains event (not income) and therefore the gain is taxed at 20% or, if ER is applicable) 10%.
The concept of deferred consideration establishes that payment for the sale of the shares can come directly from the company itself.
Therefore, if the OP sells shares to his wife, who in turn pays him for these shares using capital sat within the company she now controls this could mean him paying only 10% tax in accessing these funds.
Not being an accountant I am unaware if HMRC would accept this position so I advised the OP to speak to his accountant about this (and also asked Eric his thoughts as I highly value his expertise).
Does that make better sense?
Cheers
Do I understand what you’re saying - yes.
Does it make sense - no.
The sale of shares from OP to his wife (assuming that’s the scenario), would require his spouse to pay for the shares, whether now or at a later date. What you’re suggesting is that in order to pay for the shares, she can somehow access the money in the company and that it’ll all be treated as capital. She cannot access the money in the company in a form which makes extraction capital (save for some very specific fact patterns, eg some liquidations or some share buy back).
The flaw is that she has the obligation to pay. Not the company. Does that make sense?
This is the point I was trying to clarify, we are in agreement on everything else.
JulianPH said:
But it doesn't work that way with deferred consideration, whereby payment is made from the assets of the company, I don't believe.
This is the point I was trying to clarify, we are in agreement on everything else.
That’s not what deferred consideration is. The consideration is between husband and wife. Not the company. The only way it can be with the company in your scenario is if the company were to buy back its shares that the husband or wife own. And that’s usually treated as income, not capital. This is the point I was trying to clarify, we are in agreement on everything else.
Alpinestars said:
JulianPH said:
But it doesn't work that way with deferred consideration, whereby payment is made from the assets of the company, I don't believe.
This is the point I was trying to clarify, we are in agreement on everything else.
That’s not what deferred consideration is. The consideration is between husband and wife. Not the company. The only way it can be with the company in your scenario is if the company were to buy back its shares that the husband or wife own. And that’s usually treated as income, not capital. This is the point I was trying to clarify, we are in agreement on everything else.
I am assuming that Person A retains a minimum 5% shareholding and continues to work for the company for this period as a minimum.
As I say, I am not an accountant and that is why I am asking the question.
JulianPH said:
I can understand if they are deemed to be connected parties this might not work, but my point is that the sale of the shares is contractually structured so that (to use round numbers) Person A (the seller) agrees to £100k total consideration of which £10k is paid upfront by Person B (the purchaser) and the balance is paid in 3 equal six-monthly instalments from the company being sold.
I am assuming that Person A retains a minimum 5% shareholding and continues to work for the company for this period as a minimum.
As I say, I am not an accountant and that is why I am asking the question.
It doesn’t work. I am assuming that Person A retains a minimum 5% shareholding and continues to work for the company for this period as a minimum.
As I say, I am not an accountant and that is why I am asking the question.
What you’re describing is a mechanism for paying the consideration.
Person B owes person A for the acquisition. The sale by A, if ER applies is subject to the lower rate (but being a transaction between spouses, is at no gain/no loss). But there’s no money. If B pays the consideration directly, the company is still stuck with the money - you’re kicking the can down the road. I think you’re suggesting the company pay the consideration, ie, the money has to come out of the company? As soon as that happens, it’s taxable income for the recipient. There’s also the small matter of the company not having a liability to pay any money. It’s not party to the transaction. It’s the subject of the transaction.
Edited by Alpinestars on Sunday 20th January 12:18
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff