News from pflurklurk

  1. I understand. But know a little shift to the story: The UK company would be only a wrapped company which holds other company ownership in a jurisdiction that STOs are more difficult. So, the other company (this is in LATAM) holds the property but the tokens and ownership is "being wrapped" by the UK company. In that way (as I understand) stamp duty is out of the table. Now it is only reduced to a registry update.

  2. You pay stamp duty on the transfer of shares between owners - so between every token transfer, assuming that the token transfer was explicitly a share purchase agreement.

  3. Nice! Last question... What happen if I update the registry every 3 months to lower cost and paperwork? Like I allow every trade possible but only at the end I write to the registry.

  4. If you keep the register yourself at the company then really you just have to update every year but the company itself must have an up to date register (so when people become and ceased to become members).

  5. No, it is definitive and mostly mechanical (there are some qualitative elements regarding residences) - obviously subject to the operation of any treaty provision.

  6. You basically will be investing in whatever locally is taxed advantaged then some offshore location (which may be the UK) creating your own portfolio out of low cost components that stays there whilst you move around.

  7. Contracts for prostitution and the like are unenforceable as being contra bonos mores - if you’d like to try and be a test case as to whether a claim in unjust enrichment could succeed (I expect that could go to the Court of Appeal or above) in such circumstances you are welcome to try.

  8. Theoretically if OP did earn over £1000, would they need to call HMRC to tell them or do they automatically check with your bank how much you’ve made?

  9. Both - HMRC both already know but, there is also a legal obligation on you to tell them.

  10. Would that legal obligation be their self-assessment instead of anything else?

  11. No, all that is required is “notification” (sometimes that notification is in a prescribed form but not for this) - which you can do by calling, writing or Personal Tax Account (e.g. webchat).

  12. HMRC get the data from banks, but technically you still need to tell them (yes, silly I know).

  13. It is a year in which Class 1-3 NICs are treated as having been paid on qualifying earnings equal to 52 times the NI lower earnings limit for the year.

  14. You’d usually rent the space (and make sure you both take advice on it and have break clauses).

  15. Absolutely - and the court will like it if you try and come to a good faith settlement.

  16. Yes there would basically be an application for your importer to complete to get inward processing or temporary admission relief.

  17. Make formal complaint then contact your MP to get it referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

  18. The neighbour can’t just come on your land and kill your tree, so it’s fairly straightforward trespass.

  19. A tenancy or agreement for a place you live is a necessary and those are contracts binding on minors despite their minority, so we do not even need to consider the position about unenforceable contracts entered into when a minor but then into majority and whether they then become binding or not.

  20. Yes you can (usually) sell the superior interest freely independently of the inferior interests granted out of it.

  21. If you don’t attend you’ll probably be dismissed and that will probably be that, unless they accept you can’t/reschedule due to your school obligations.

  22. It can also be more than one event per year, as long as in total it doesn’t exceed £150 across the year.

  23. Indeed, although I think it still requires that the event be an annual nature rather than say, having 2 "annual Christmas parties" of £75 each given the wording of s.251(3):

  24. Have the company gift it and take the CT deduction - if you pay yourself, you may have an NIC bill.

  25. Yes it would have to be a furnished holiday letting business I think. Sounds unlikely in this case

  26. FHLs have different tax treatment - they are about being charged as trading income. It is possible for normal residential letting to be a business without being an FHL but HMRC will probably win any tribunal case where it’s just one property managed passively.

  27. You see this is where the ET case Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd EA-2020-000006, would argue that by simply not complying with the orders (bundle ans witness statements) is enough to justify that a fair hearing could no longer take place. And it would not be feasible to rearrange.

  28. Anyone who says "[I] would argue" betrays or implies the fact they have a weak position or understanding of the point they are making - never use it in submissions or advocacy.

  29. Thank you for your reply. I guess my question in turn would be if criminal damage, why would there be any expense to us? As for the emotional stress, they/she has given us enough of that in various ways so this would be the response to that.

  30. The cost is when inevitably the police don't proceed with it, the other side escalate causing more damage, or you have to take civil proceedings at that point to get some redress - thereby dropping the value of your property with the declaration requirements if anyone wants to buy.

  31. Again, forgive me as I may be ignorant towards how and what the police might do but surely if a third party is causing intentional damage, they must respond accordingly? To be fair, I’m not even fussed if they do not proceed with it other than turning up at their door to discuss - I am fed up with her thinking that she has free reign (which, from the sounds of it she does) to do as she pleases. I’m confident that if she was to be spoken to it would stop as she works in a school, her husband a bank and any potential implications may frighten them.

  32. The police are under no individual duty to anyone about crime except in very narrow circumstances (murder, rape etc.).

  33. Its a GP partnership so apart from the loss of the person the partnership would continue as there are another 10 partners.

  34. Well, the lodestar is whether 5 years protects the legitimate interests of the partnership, or, alternatively, is penal.

  35. 5 year bar from withdrawal from the partnership?

  36. Funnily enough that is where I posted it first and it got deleted for some reason?

  37. First posts come with an auto delete to make you read the rules they send you, you can then confirm you read and it will restore it, alternatively contact the moderators.

  38. Thanks but I've been a member of that sub for a while and posted a few times before. It might be because I started with "I'm not sure if this is a post for uklegaladvice but..." - maybe they don't allow mentions of other subs?

  39. Just message the mods and they should allow it...

  40. The executors will have to sell the property to pay the debt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have missed