Capital Gearing Share Discussion Threads

[gengulphus] 06/1/2015 11:25

So, in year gains minus in year losses first, then deduct the annual cgt allowance (10.9K), any gains left after that to be deducted from previous years losses.

Yes, effectively - though the way they actually present it is the slightly more complicated order 1) deduct same-year losses (as far as possible); 2) deduct brought-forward losses (only down as far as the CGT allowance); 3) deduct CGT allowance. It's currently equivalent to your order in all usual circumstances.

I say "currently" because before the 2008 CGT simplifications, taper relief was applied between steps 2 and 3 in the more complicated order and couldn't be fitted in at all straightforwardly in your order. So your order has only been usable since then, and there's no guarantee it will remain usable after the next time the government decides to revamp CGT!

And I say "in all usual circumstances" because there are still some obscure circumstances in which I think it makes a difference. One of them is to do with brought-forward "clogged losses", which are losses (generally arising on disposals to family members or other closely-connected people) that are only allowed to be offset against some types of gain. Essentially, your order would allow the CGT allowance to be offset against those types of gain to make the brought-forward losses unusable or to use them against other types of gain to make the brought-forward losses usable. The official order would require the brought-forward clogged losses to be offset against the gains before the CGT allowance comes into play... I'm not certain why anyone would want to exploit the extra choice your order implies - it looks like a route to paying more CGT! But technically, it looks to me as though the official order that extra choice doesn't exist even if someone does manage to find a method of exploiting it profitably!

In short, your order looks fine as long as you don't rely on it remaining fine in the future or if your CGT affairs become too complicated.

Gengulphus

[s2lowner] 06/1/2015 08:39

Thanks David77 and Gengulphus for this

I waded through the HMRC site and found the HMRC agent kits last night and found a paragraph in the cgt one that said the same more or less the same
hxxps://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-agents-toolkits. I thought they were quite useful


So, in year gains minus in year losses first, then deduct the annual cgt allowance (10.9K), any gains left after that to be deducted from previous years losses.

If previous years losses are used then if the brought forward losses include losses recorded before 95/96 you have to use 96/97 and later losses first before earlier ones for some reason. (doesn't apply to me)

many thanks for your help on this

[gengulphus] 06/1/2015 04:09

s2lowner,

You have to use same-year losses against gains right down to the point of having no gains left, but only have to use brought-forward losses against gains down to the point of having gains equal to the CGT allowance. You also use same-year losses before brought-forward losses, so in your scenario where the gains are below the CGT allowance after using the same-year losses, no brought-forward losses get used up.

As I'm also not qualified to give tax advice, I should say that I am only passing on HMRC's own advice - see (probably among other places) the 3rd paragraph on page 6 of :

"When you deduct losses brought forward from gains of a later year (after
deducting losses of the same year, first) you only use enough losses brought
forward to reduce the gains to the annual exempt amount. You must use up
brought forward losses from 1996–97 and later years before deducting losses
from 1995–96 and earlier years."

The "annual exempt amount" is HMRC's formal term for the CGT allowance.

Gengulphus

[ianhamo] 05/1/2015 19:47

The Housecrowd.com

[david77] 05/1/2015 19:45

I am not qualified to give advice but I think that if you've made a gain overall this year then you carry forward previous years losses unchanged.

[s2lowner] 05/1/2015 19:36

Hello I wonder if anyone can help my question is about the sequence in which you use the previous years loss total against this years CGT gains

If I make a gain of £7k after this years losses (less than the annual exempt amount of £10.9k) do I take the 7k off the previous years loss total and carry forward a reduced total of tax losses to the next financial year or:

Is the 7k taken against this years annual exempt amount first and the total (larger) value of the losses remains the same and I carry that larger figure forward to the next year without the £7k gain being deducted, hence I have a bigger figure to offset my CGT liability against in future years

Any help appreciated

[eringael] 03/1/2015 19:40

Hi guysWonder if someone would help with my query - I have just accepted voluntary redundancy . About 22k of the package will be taxableIs there anyway to offset the tax payable on my pay in lire of notice etcAm I better not working until new tax year and maybe get a rebate / recalculationAppreciate any thoughtsThanks eringael

[sleveen] 31/12/2014 17:06

Hi David,

That's sorted it.

I hope it didn't cause too much of a headache.

sleveen
aka David

[david77] 31/12/2014 16:51

slaveen - would you like to try the calc at www.stonebanks.co.uk again.
It's now hxxp://homepage.ntlworld.com/stonebanks/0809tax31.htm

[sleveen] 31/12/2014 16:30

Hi David,

Just got back home so I've not been able to respond to your earlier reply.



I don't have Opera and I'm not sure even if I did I would be able to follow it.

[david77] 31/12/2014 13:52

This is option 2 on www.stonebanks.co.uk

[smurfy2001] 31/12/2014 13:15

Which website uses this code as l use CGTCalculator but will try the other to check the calculations?

[david77] 31/12/2014 12:43

I'll change the dates to make it a bit easier:

abc
12/11/14, b, 1000, 100, 1006
31/12/14, s, 600, 90, 535
01/01/15, b, 600, 80, 485

if ((Math.round(mydate[selldeal].substr(6, 2) === (Math.round(mydate[buydeal].substr(6, 2) - 1)) // next year

becomes if (14 = 15-1) so the answer is true.
Substr takes 2 chars starting at the sixth (counting from zero)

&& (365 - (daysfromjan(mydate[selldeal])) + daysfromjan(mydate[buydeal])) <= 30))

becomes AND (365 - 365 + 1) is less than or equal to 30 - looks like true to me

&& (bs[selldeal] === "S") && ((bs[buydeal] === "B")

becomes AND the selldeal is a sell and the buydeal is a buy - again should be true
so under30 should be set true.

[sleveen] 31/12/2014 08:18

Hi,

I think there may be a bug in David's program as the 30 day rule appears not to recognised as the year changes to 2015. (I have set the days in the program calculation to between 6/4/2014 - 5/4/2015).

Companies abc and xyz are the same transactions other than the xyz buy back is 03/01/2015

abc
12/11/14, b, 1000, 100, 1006
22/12/14, s, 600, 90, 535
29/12/14, b, 600, 80, 485

(buy back 7 days later is recognised under 30 day rule)

xyz
12/11/14, b, 1000, 100, 1006
22/12/14, s, 600, 90, 535
03/01/15, b, 600, 80, 485

(buy back 12 days later in 2015 is not recognised under 30 day rule by the program)


Help/comments much appreciated.

[bagpuss67] 22/12/2014 14:03

thanks very much. now i see this

CG56100 - Futures: financial futures: contracts for differences
The term 'contract for differences' is not new. In its widest sense it refers to any derivative contract involving a cash payment, or series of cash payments, between the parties based on fluctuations in the value or price of property, or an index designated in the contract. It therefore encompasses many financial derivatives, including futures and options which can only be cash settled, as well as swaps.

However the term has become associated with a particular type of contract (a "retail contract for differences") marketed, particularly to individual investors, alongside futures and options. Such a contract enables an investor to take a view on whether a share price, an index, or the value of an asset will go up or down.

Typically, an investor enters into a contract for differences with a counter-party authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, a derivatives broker. The investor may "go long" on the underlying asset or index, anticipating that its value will increase. In that case, he will receive a payment based on the increase in the value of the asset or index between his entering into the contract and closing out the contract. Contracts are commonly closed out by entering into an equal and opposite contract.

Alternatively, if he thinks the value of the underlying asset or index is going to go down, he will "go short" in the contract, receiving payment based on the fall in value during the life of the contract.

The investor will have to put up a deposit, commonly 20% of the value of the underlying asset, although it may range from about 5% to 35%. As the value of the underlying asset moves, he or she may be entitled to a refund of part of that deposit, or may have to increase it.

In the case of contracts where the underlying asset is shares or a share index, the investor who goes long may also be entitled to receive a sum equivalent to any dividend payable on the shares (if they are the underlying asset) or on the shares that make up the index. This "dividend" will be netted off against the deposit.

The derivatives broker who is the other party to the contract may also debit the account with a sum equivalent to the interest the investor would have to pay had he or she borrowed commercially to buy the shares. Thus an investor taking a long position on shares worth £100,000, and putting down a deposit of £20,000, will have to pay "interest" calculated on either the gross value of the position (£100,000) or the net value (£80,000), depending on the precise details of the contract.

Retail contracts for differences enable investors to have the returns that would arise from holding shares without having to pay the full price for the shares (and without paying the dealing costs such as stamp duty reserve tax). An investor who "goes long" on shares has returns equivalent to those he or she would receive on a holding of the shares in question.

An investor who goes short is producing the same results as if they were to enter into a contract to sell, at a future date, shares that they did not own, in the hope that the price would fall before completion of the sale, so that they could buy the shares that they had to deliver at a price lower than the agreed sale price.

This means that the investor who takes a short position will be:

credited with a payment equivalent to the "interest" they would receive had they sold shares and deposited the cash (the rate at which interest is credited on short positions is generally lower than that at which interest in charged on long positions), and
debited with an amount representing the dividends they would forego by parting with the shares.
Payments equivalent to interest that the investor makes or receives are not true interest. Similarly, no true dividends change hands. The amounts are instead entered into the capital gains computation. The investor should not show amounts received as investment income (interest or company dividends) on his or her return. And "interest" or "dividends" paid cannot be netted off against income.

The final element that enters the computation is commission, which most brokers charge on contracts for differences.

Retail contracts for differences are financial futures, and, unless the profits are taxable as trading income, in almost every case TCGA92/S143 charges the outcomes under the capital gains regime (CG56000+). SP03/02 gives guidance on when profits or losses are to be regarded as trading income.

All debits and credits to the account, including commission and sums equivalent to interest and dividends, are brought within the computation of the net chargeable gain or allowable loss when the contract is closed out

[gengulphus] 22/12/2014 13:49

Bagpuss67,

CFDs are subject to CGT and I don't see any reason why 'long' and 'short' CFDs should differ on that: basically, for both of them you effectively buy a contract and later sell it, with the only difference being the exact formula that determines the difference between what you buy it for and what you sell it for. So I'm reasonably certain the answer to your question is that yes, they are subject to CGT.

If you want to avoid CGT, I believe you need to use spreadbets instead.

Gengulphus

[bagpuss67] 22/12/2014 13:32

hi all..anyone know if gains from shorting shares using CFDs are liable to CGT? cheers

[peawacks] 21/11/2014 15:20

Thanks, Chairman.

[chairman20] 21/11/2014 13:55

peawacks

an effective date - amazing how few people remember to put a definite date in
for the record.

next it depends entirely on the rules of the investment club and the broker platform it uses. If you can transfer your interest in the pooled investments represented by the investment club without transferring underlying investments held then it will be a notification procedure to the club - otherwise you will need to inform the broker and get them to transfer shares using their share transfer form (and pay fees and dues)

[peawacks] 20/11/2014 17:55

I want to transfer my share of an investment club ( of which we are both members) to my wife. The broker requires a covering letter. What do I write in the letter ? Thanks in advance.

[bigwavedave] 14/10/2014 13:03

Gengulphus - many thanks for your super-speedy and comprehensive info.
I suspected this would be the case but always like to double check.
Thanks for the links - yes, very technical from a layman's point of view but I think that in this case CGT would apply.
At least it'd make record-keeping more straightforward...no more shoeboxes full of receipts!
Great thread. Very useful and informative. Really appreciate you taking the time to reply.
All the best, BWD.

[gengulphus] 14/10/2014 12:24

If you trade shares for a living, making a proper business of it in the same way as e.g. a market maker does, then the whole operation becomes subject to Income Tax (and not CGT - anything that is taxed by Income Tax is not also taxed by CGT) and all the usual business expenses can be deducted.

It is however pretty difficult to persuade the taxman that that's what you're doing. Just about any normal individual trading in shares is 'investing' or 'speculating' rather than 'trading' in the technical sense, and that means that what they're doing is taxed by CGT and only the limited set of costs that can be claimed for CGT are allowed - from memory (so I might be missing one or two):

* acquisition costs - what you actually pay for the shares;

* incidental costs of acquisition and disposal - fees and other costs directly associated with the acquisition or disposal, such as broker commission, stamp duty, PTM levy; fees associated with the account rather than a specific acquisition or disposal (e.g. inactivity fees) don't count;

* enhancement costs - payments to improve the shareholding (main case I know of for that is if you subscribe to a rights issue, the subscription is basically an enhancement cost that enhances the nil-paid rights split out of the shares into fully-paid shares).

* costs to establish your title to the shares - have never encountered that one, but I can imagine it could come up in some obscure circumstances.

If you'd like some HMRC material about what is needed to make trading in shares count as 'trading' in the technical sense and so be subject to Income Tax rather than CGT, see and the pages it links to.

Gengulphus