Does the 6th April 2023 date for reduced CGT personal allowance apply to date of sale, or exchange of contracts? We are selling a rental property and as such Capital Gains Tax (CGT) applies on profits. On 6th April 2023, the personal CGT allowance is being reduced from £12,300 to £6000. Our sale is likely to complete around this date and with two owners, that means we potentially stand to pay CGT on an additional £12,600. Somebody told me that the key factor in the date cut-off is when contracts are exchanged for the sale, rather than when the sale is completed. But I cannot find any information supporting or rejecting this claim. Can anyone give an evidence-based answer either way?
It's the date of exchange, referred to as the &quot;disposal date&quot;. See the gov.uk guidance: Capital Gains Tax is a tax on the profit when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) something (an ‘asset’) that’s increased in value. And the HMRC Capital Gains Manual: What date did you exchange contracts? This is the disposal date. The contract exchange date is usually when the buyer and seller exchange contracts and is usually when the new owner pays a deposit. The tax year of exchange is the tax year that the disposal is chargeable in, even if completion of the contract occurs in a later tax year.
See Brindley Twist Tafft &amp; James LLP, &quot;Focus on the Mortgage Repossession (Protection of Tenants Act etc.) 2010 [sic]&quot;. If the tenancy was an authorized tenancy under the terms of the mortgage: The Bank may still take possession of the property but they may have to do so subject to your occupation. The practical effect of this is that you would be allowed to remain living in the property subject to the terms of your tenancy agreement but you would see a change in the identity of the Landlord. It is possible for the tenancy to be brought to an end but in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement. If the tenancy was not authorized: Under the Mortgage Repossession (Protection of Tenants Act etc) 2010 [sic] (the “Act”) an unauthorised residential tenant is however entitled to request that possession be delayed for up to two months during which time they should try to find alternative accommodation.
In the general case, when a company is dissolved any assets still belonging to it becomes bona vacantia under Section 1012 of the Companies Act 2006 which means that it belongs to the Crown. The Crown can then choose to disclaim its rights to the asset under Section 1013, and typically will do this where there are risks involved (e.g. leasehold land). The effect of dislaimer, per Sections 1014 and 1015 is that the &quot;property is deemed not to have vested in the Crown&quot; and it terminates &quot;the rights, interests and liabilities of the company in or in respect of the property disclaimed&quot;. In the case of freehold land that is disclaimed, it escheats (transfers) to the Crown Estate and the freehold interest is extinguished. According to Practical Law (paywall): Note, if the land is registered, the registered title will remain and the Land Registrar may enter a notice on the Land Registry title if notified (rule 173, Land Registration Rules 2003). The notice will recite the fact of the liquidator's disclaimer or Crown disclaimer but will not otherwise specify that the land has passed by escheat. The Crown Estate then becomes entitled (but not obliged) to take possession of it. The Crown Estate will not assume any liabilities as owner of the land unless it does take possession or exercises control over the property. The result of this is that the only action the Crown Estate will generally take as regards escheated land is to sell the whole of the land to a suitable buyer who approaches the Crown Estate. You can read more about how the Crown Estate subsequently deals with such property (including if and how it sells the property) in their FAQs.
The first thing to notice is that the £100 offer appears to be a legit offer. That is to say, accepting it will create a binding agreement between you and the company. There is no reason yet for the company to believe that you have suffered more damages, and you do have reasonable options to prevent them (ask bank for a new card - that's not going to cost you £100). The second observation is that the GDPR does not really affect the first observation. The GDPR itself does not give rise to additional civil claims or special damages. Yes, the GDPR states that the company is in the wrong, but parties can make agreements how a wrongful deed is made right again. And their offer appears to do so. Note that accepting the offer does not take away your continuing GDPR rights. It just affects their past error. You can still ask them whether they have your card data on file today.
It depends on whether your tax accounting is on an accrual basis or cash basis. The UK government (at least) refers to the former as traditional accounting. In that method of accounting, whatever it's called, you book the income when you invoice the work (that is, when it accrues). If you're paid in the next year, your balance sheet will show the outstanding balance in accounts receivable. Similarly, you book expenses when you incur them, not when you pay them. So if you bought a new computer for your business with a deferred payment plan, you book the entire expense at the time of the purchase, not the time of payment. Cash accounting is simpler. You can only use it if your total turnover from all of your businesses is less than £150,000 annually. You also cannot use cash accounting if your business is a limited company or limited liability partnership, or is on a list of certain types of businesses: Lloyd’s underwriters farming businesses with a current herd basis election farming and creative businesses with a section 221 ITTOIA profit averaging election businesses that have claimed business premises renovation allowance businesses that carry on a mineral extraction trade businesses that have claimed research and development allowance dealers in securities relief for mineral royalties lease premiums ministers of religion pool betting duty intermediaries treated as making employment payments managed service companies waste disposal cemeteries and crematoria For more information about traditional accounting, see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-calculate-your-taxable-profits-hs222-self-assessment-helpsheet.
She could refer this to the Cyrpriot Commissioner for Personal Data Protection, but I would try contacting the company first and telling them to remove her Personal Data from the public website - or delete it completely. If they don't give a satisfactory response, mention the CPDP. This could lead to the data being removed within a few days, while an official complaint is likely to take longer. She may have grounds for legal action which would result in the company being compelled to take down the data (or to close the website), but if your friend is thinking in terms of compensation, what compensation would she seek? If she can demonstrate and quantify financial losses that occurred specifically because of this disclosure there might be a possibility, but I suspect that would be difficult to prove.
According to dot-gov's Strike off your limited company from the Companies Register page... Does company B need to file corporation tax with HMRC? Yes You must send final statutory accounts and a Company Tax Return to HMRC. ... and annual accounts with Companies House? No You don’t have to file final accounts with Companies House. Does person A need to declare or pay income tax on the company's trading loss? Yes If you’ve made a loss in your final year of trading, you might be able to offset the tax against profits from previous years - this is known as ‘terminal loss relief’. You can claim this on your final tax return. However, you're better off checking with HMRC to be sure.
Usually I would think one answer to a question is enough. But since your edits have transformed a reasonable procedural question into what appears to be a rant about unfairness of the sort which any bankruptcy court has heard hundreds of times before, I will give another piece of advice: Focus on one thing at a time. The judge at the hearing of the application will be deciding (if your question is accurate) the single point whether a house should be sold. The submission "There is an application to annul the bankruptcy to be heard on XXX; if it succeeds this application is a waste of money and if it fails there will still be time for this application before the time limit, so you should adjourn till YYY" is a reasonable one that he will take into account. Saying "The bankruptcy order should never have been made; it was a mistake by my accountants and HMRC, and a High Court Judge joined in the conspiracy" will get you precisely nowhere. Even if the judge believed you rather than the written evidence, it has no bearing on the point he is being asked to decide. More generally; besides casting your arguments into proper shape, there is another good reason to consult a professional, namely that he can tell you when to give up. The courts are bound by laws and regulations; however unfair you may think the result, at some point it is necessary to accept the reality rather than wasting time and money making points that the law cares nothing about. (And no, I see no point discussing this further in comments. This answer can be upvoted if you think it helpful or downvoted if you think it "not useful"; it isn't something to argue against.)