Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Capital Gearing Trust Plc LSE:CGT London Ordinary Share GB0001738615 ORD 25P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 4,230.00p 4,220.00p 4,230.00p 4,230.00p 4,220.00p 4,220.00p 17,975 15:41:24
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 2.9 2.0 37.0 114.2 325.82

Capital Gearing Share Discussion Threads

Showing 8226 to 8247 of 8250 messages
Chat Pages: 330  329  328  327  326  325  324  323  322  321  320  319  Older
Would appreciate a little help with the following. Held shares in a company which was effectively taken over by the largest shareholder in May 2016.Incurred a significant CGT loss on the transaction. Omitted to claim the loss when I did my CGT calculations for the 2016/17 tax year. Would I be able to include this sale in my CGT calculations for the 2018/19 tax year or have I missed the boat here?
singh is king
Could have died laughing....
I think the best simplification of capital gains deferred by subscribing for VCTs (before 2004) is described in - but I'm in no hurry to use it! ;-) Gengulphus
I thank you! I never understand why HMRC can't give an example of the simplest of situations! I just thought after all these years, since I wasn't using all my CGT allowance this year, to simplify my historic tax position. Having said that, Trivest > IGV has been a spectacular investment. Ralph
Rahosi, What you say looks correct to me, though I've never actually brought any of the gains I've deferred with VCT investments back into charge and haven't really looked at the rules for doing so properly since I made those investments. So my actual knowledge of the rules is at least about 15 years old, since CGT deferral relief for VCTs was abolished in 2004, apart of course from previously-deferred gains remaining deferred ever since. I have however looked for HMRC material on the subject, and I'll mention the main source of it that I've found, which is and the pages it links to - worth mentioning just in case you haven't found them. I've skim-read them and as far as I can tell from that skim-read, they match your understanding and mine. They look very complicated, but a lot of the complexity is due to them having to deal with a lot of unusual cases and vanishes if you disregard those cases. For instance, if you were to make a copy of them and cross out (or colour grey, or whatever other way you prefer of marking material as not relevant) everything to do with not having obtained Income Tax relief and/or CGT disposal relief on some or all of the shares, I suspect over half the text would go - and a lot more would go if you did the same with regard to companies losing their VCT status, being taken over by non-VCT companies, the investor transferring the shares to their spouse, emigrating, investing more than the limit in a tax year, being a director of the VCT, and other special cases that (presumably!) don't apply to you. What it boils down to without all that special-case stuff is very simple in comparison, and provided I haven't missed anything, does boil down to what you say. Anyway, the net result of all the above is basically to say that I agree with you, but I'm not speaking from a position of vast experience on the matter. On this, regard me as someone with a similar amount of knowledge to you about the matter who has come to the same opinion, not as an expert! Gengulphus
Gengulphus, can I please ask your advice on a VCT CGT deferral? Have read a lot of the HMRC VCT info and failing to comprehend. I invest in VCTs most years. In Jan 2001 I invested £25K (£10K net) in Trivest VCT (now The Income & Growth VCT). This year I doubt I will utilise all my £11850 CGT allowance: probably ~£8250 unused. Over the years I have received substantial dividends, but there was only an additional purchase in 2017, no disposals. As far as I understand, simply, The original purchase has 40%, £8K CGT deferred tax which, If I sold the original FIFO quantity (adjusted by merger in 2010), would become taxable, but with no tax to pay as under my annual CGT allowance. Have I got it right? Thanks, Ralph
Many thanks for your reply, Distaste it is, that's why I was wondering if the need was still there if all my trading was within a Share dealing wrapper.
Well, tax shelters include not just ISAs, but also SIPPs (and others as well, but ISAs and SIPPs are the two types that most people can open). It's only when your investments are not in any of them that they become subject to CGT - it doesn't specifically have to be an ISA. And the 4 x CGT allowance rule isn't a maximum on how much you're allowed to trade, it's just a requirement for you to complete more paperwork (or its online equivalent) if you go over it. What is stopping you from going over it is your distaste for that paperwork, not the rule itself. By the way, I do think it's a very understandable distaste, and I'd probably let my similar distaste hold me back from going over the 4 x CGT allowance limit as well if I didn't usually need to complete SA108 anyway for other reasons! Gengulphus
Outwith an ISA there's most certainly a x4 CGT max before the Tax office requires one to fill out a sa108, it's the reason I went into a Share dealing ISA.
To the best of my knowledge there are no HMRC restrictions on the number trades in any given year. It may be possible that the provider may impose a limit but unlikly given they make their money from trade commission.
Would you please offer an opinion on the following question: Having put ones maximum annual allowable amount into a Share dealing ISA is there any restrictions on the number of buy & sells one can carry out with that ISA during the financial year? I ask because prior to having a Share Dealing ISA I had to limit the value of my total sells to a max of 4 x the CGT amount for that year or fill out a SA108.
finkwot, Incidentally, what counts as "enhancement costs" for a shareholding, or does that only apply to other types of asset? I think that if one takes up a rights issue, one's payment of the subscription counts as an "enhancement cost" (which looking at HMRC's CGT worksheet, I should probably more properly have called an "improvement cost"). I've never seen HMRC say explicitly that it is one, but they're quite clear that it doesn't count as an extra acquisition, which can be relevant for the 30-day rule: if you sell shares on e.g. May 1st and then subscribe to a May 15th rights issue, the new shares you get from subscribing to the rights don't get matched to the sale. Specifically, their helpsheet is quite explicit about the facts that rights issue are share reorganisations, that share reorganisations don't count as acquisitions, and that the same-day rules and 30-day rules don't apply to share reorganisations. It also says that one should add the amount subscribed to the cost of the original shares, and gives an example (example 4) showing this being done at the date of the rights issue (*), not the date of the original purchase or anything like that (which almost certainly couldn't be made to make sense anyway in complex cases, given all the things that might have happened since the original purchase). Anyway, that treatment of a rights issue subscription seems to me to be entirely consistent with the general treatment of improvement costs, and subscribing to rights is actually technically a matter of improving them from being 'nil paid' to being 'fully paid'. So I'm quite happy to treat rights issue subscriptions as improvement costs to the shareholding - but I can't say that HMRC have said that that's the right classification of them, nor that they've said any other classification is the right one. I'm quite happy to declare to them that the resulting tax returns are "complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief" - but the words "and belief" are definitely an important aspect of that! (*) Though somewhat annoyingly, they're not clear about exactly which date it is. There are at least four different dates that it could be: the date the company becomes committed to the rights issue (which might either be the date it is announced or a later date when it ceases to be subject to shareholder approval and/or other conditions), the date the rights are split off from the shares (i.e. the shares go ex-rights and the rights come into existence), the date the shareholder actually commits to paying the subscription, and the date the rights issue closes. They're typically spread over at least a few weeks, and while the inapplicability of the same-day and 30-day rules makes the exact date much less likely to be important, it can still be so if it affects whether a share sale took place before or after the additions to the numbers of shares in and cost of the Section 104 pool. I think the answer is that it's the date the rights are split off from the shares - but that's only because on detailed consideration of a quite a few hypothetical situations, it's the date that produces the most sensible (IMHO) results, not because I've found anything HMRC have said officially about the answer. But I'm not confident about that answer, since producing sensible results is by no means an infallible guide to questions about tax rules. So what I do in practice is give that date in my CGT computations, but carefully avoid making sales on the range of dates around a rights issue where the answer would make a difference to the CGT computations. I.e. the worst I get wrong in the computations is a date that is not the date of any capital gain/loss, not the amounts or dates of any gains/losses. HMRC have never questioned me about any such dates, by the way, but I read very little into that, because the fact that CGT computations can be submitted in any format one feels appropriate very strongly suggests that they're only looked at by humans, not computers, and thus that they'll only be looked at at all if HMRC happens to pick one's tax return out for detailed examination by a human. There's definitely a nonzero chance of that happening, as HMRC pick some tax returns for detailed examination completely randomly - but their limited manpower means that it must be a pretty low chance. Gengulphus
Gengulphus, thanks for the detailed response. I normally use to work out my tax for share dealings (which handles this section 104 stuff for me) but this year my CFDs and share dealings have exceeded the CGT allowance. I think the easiest is to group all the CFD and Share dealings in date order and paste the block into CGTCalculator to do the workings out so l can actually fill in my tax form with all the details needed. Thankfully CFD interest could l guess be part of the commission as this eats into the capital gains per HMRC examples and CFD dividends add to the capital gains.
You're probably right, and if I had thought of it before I started I might have done something more on those lines. I did go back to the beginning on one of the more complex calculations, to see how it would look, but errors kept creeping in and I gave up. We've provided all the data in its place (breakdown of acquisition costs at the point of acquisition), and the final data to match the boxes on the page for listing computations that didn't use the HMRC worksheet. We'll submit it as it is and see what they say. Incidentally, what counts as "enhancement costs" for a shareholding, or does that only apply to other types of asset?
smurfy2001, Anyone know if CFDs are exempt from the bed and breakfast rule? CFDs are not something I have any real experience of, but the general principle about the share identification rules (which include the '30-day' or 'anti-bed-and-breakfasting' rule) is expressed in HMRC's Capital Gains manual, specifically in : "One feature of shares is that unless they are numbered, and most shares are not, all shares of the same class in the same company are identical. The problem this causes can be illustrated quite easily. In 2010 Mr A bought 1,000 shares in B PLC at a price of £2.50 per share. He bought a further 500 shares in 2005 at £3 per share. He has now spent £4,000 on 1,500 shares. In 2010 he sold 250 shares for £4 each. To work out the capital gain you need to know which shares the taxpayer sold and how much they cost. The issue does not just arise with shares but with any assets that are not distinguishable from each other or are dealt with as if they are. The share identification rules therefore also apply to such assets TCGA92/S104(1)(3)(ii). Se CG11820. The rules also even if in practice the separate assets are identifiable, say by their numbers, TCGA92/S104(1). This chapter deals with the special rules ..." (Rather more detail is available in the section of the manual introduced by that - see the pages linked to by - but unfortunately nothing specifically about CFDs that I've spotted. There is also a small amount in the manual about CFDs, in and , but it looks silent on the question of whether the share identification rules apply to them.) I'm not really certain what the third paragraph of that quote is meant to convey, but my best guess is that it's saying that if a particular type of asset is in general not individually identifiable, then it doesn't matter whether one can prove where it came from in a specific case. For instance, if in the example in the first paragraph, Mr A happened to have made the first purchase in his account with broker X and his second purchase in his account with a different broker Y, and he sold the shares from the broker X account (and had not made any transfers of the shares in or out of the broker X account over the period concerned), he can actually prove that the shares he sold came from the first purchase and not the second. But the rules don't care - they'll still treat the shares sold as coming from a Section 104 'pool' of 1500 shares bought for £4,000. Anyway, quite a long time ago I read somewhere that some CFD providers give their CFDs individual serial numbers and all transactions in them identify the specific CFDs traded by their serial numbers, while others just have some standard types and one just buys and sells however many one wants without identifying them specifically, as with shares. And that this determines whether the share identification rules apply to them. I'm afraid I can't point to where I read it, I have no real idea about how authoritative it was and even if it was an accurate answer, it was probably 10 or more years ago so could well be well out of date by now! But it does seem to be consistent with the HMRC material I've quoted above. Gengulphus
finkwot, This is an observation rather than a question, though further observations are welcome. I'm quite aware that I'm stumbling my way through a thicket blindfold. On the worksheet for simple calculations they ask for gross disposal proceeds incidental disposal costs acquisition cost incidental costs of acquisition On my own workings for complex calculations I've provided all the data but in writing out the relevant figures for each disposal I've only provided the total acquisition cost without breaking it down. I've provided the breakdown of disposal into gross proceeds and costs. In simple cases it would be easy to provide all the figures, but in complex cases it's really not feasible. I'm assuming because I have provided all the data as it arises during the workings I'm ok doing it like this. I also think my position is borne out by the wording of the law at Http:// I think you're probably right about it being unnecessary, but don't feel entirely certain because it's the sort of thing that might be in secondary legislation / regulations. Satisfying oneself that something is not in primary legislation is hard enough, doing the same for secondary legislation / regulations I give up on! So I basically include all the details I input into my spreadsheets in my submitted computations. That includes the breakdown of every specific transaction's final total into acquisition costs, enhancement costs, incidental costs and disposal proceeds (some of which will be zero for any particular transaction), as well as the final total itself - it's a bit more input work than the bare essentials (disposal proceeds and incidental costs for sales, final total for purchases, as you say), but (a) I like to be able to keep an eye on the incidental costs anyway, if only out of curiosity about how low I'm keeping them; (b) I've found the protection it gives against typos while inputting the data and other inadvertent errors very valuable. Basically, the spreadsheet includes a check that (final total) = (disposal proceeds) - (acquisition costs) - (enhancement costs) - (incidental costs) with the appropriate sign, and if it doesn't, conditional formatting highlights the mistake with an eye-catching red background. This alerts me to the mistake immediately, so I know which transaction is in error and I've still got its details in front of me, making it very little work to correct it. I haven't really found tracking that breakdown through the subsequent computations very difficult - I just add up, apportion, etc, each category separately, with a little bit of care taken in the spreadsheet formulae to make certain that nothing goes missing because of rounding effects (things like 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.0 rounding to 2 + 2 = 3 are a bit aggravating if they're allowed to get through...). That did require a bit of care originally to get the spreadsheet formulae exactly right, but once that was done, it just became a matter of "I need to do an apportionment, so use my standard apportionment formulae". The breakdown of incidental costs into those for the acquisition and those for the disposal can get blurred in the process - there's just one incidental costs column in my spreadsheet - but each original transaction does have its incidental costs declared, so it matches what HMRC's worksheet does in the simple cases... And just to be clear, this isn't intended as the answer to a question, nor as saying what I think the requirements are - just as observations about what I personally choose to do. Gengulphus
Edit. I've removed this question about payments on account to HMRC as I've found relevant material here: Https:// I ought to have checked online first, but I was a bit shocked at the demand. I'll come back if necessary.
Anyone know if CFDs are exempt from the bed and breakfast rule?
This is an observation rather than a question, though further observations are welcome. I'm quite aware that I'm stumbling my way through a thicket blindfold. On the worksheet for simple calculations they ask for gross disposal proceeds incidental disposal costs acquisition cost incidental costs of acquisition On my own workings for complex calculations I've provided all the data but in writing out the relevant figures for each disposal I've only provided the total acquisition cost without breaking it down. I've provided the breakdown of disposal into gross proceeds and costs. In simple cases it would be easy to provide all the figures, but in complex cases it's really not feasible. I'm assuming because I have provided all the data as it arises during the workings I'm ok doing it like this. I also think my position is borne out by the wording of the law at Http:// (1)Except as otherwise expressly provided, the sums allowable as a deduction from the consideration in the computation of the gain accruing to a person on the disposal of an asset shall be restricted to— (a)the amount or value of the consideration, in money or money’s worth, given by him or on his behalf wholly and exclusively for the acquisition of the asset, together with the incidental costs to him of the acquisition... (c)the incidental costs to him of making the disposal.
I got the answer from @HMRCcustomers on twitter. I hadn't thought of that, and there are limits to the questions you can ask in 280 characters, but they sent an email suggesting it as a way to ask questions and I managed to fit it in. Certainly less painful than ringing up, listening to recorded messages, being on hold for 20 minutes and getting someone who doesn't quite seem to understand what you're trying to ask.
Gengulphus Thank you very much for that. I think I have the BBY losses written out correctly, though I may come back when I double check everything at the end. EDIT - I've found the answer to this and added it at the bottom. Problem: I purchase say 100 shares in XYZ plc Sometime later I purchase 50 shares and sell 60 shares on the same day. The gain or loss on the sale is calculated in two parts - 50 shares correspond to my purchase of the same day, and 10 shares to my earlier purchase. I therefore have two figures for gains or losses, derived from one sale. HMRC ask me the number of disposals I have made. Is it one or two? - if one, do I add the two gains/losses together and declare them as one? Answer: Add the gains / losses together and declare them as one.
finkwot, Shares in BBY purchased in 2007 and 2008. Rights issue in 2009. Rights lapsed, payment received. Shares eventually sold in 2017. No other transactions. I was assuming I would deduct that payment from the original cost of acquisition to find the cost of acquisition to use for calculating CGT loss on the eventual sale in 2017. However I have now read this: ... The payment was in excess of £3,000 and in excess of 5% of the value, so it's not a 'small' amount. There's no mention of CGT in the notes I have for her 2010 tax return, but I'll assume that's because she was within the threshold. Does the fact that her receipt of this payment was technically treated as a part disposal of her shareholding in 2009 affect the cost of acquisition I must use today to calculate the loss on sale of the shares in 2017? Yes, the lapsed rights payment is treated as a capital distribution ( and as it fails to qualify as 'small', it needs to be treated as a part disposal as described in the pages under, especially CG57825-6. (There might be exceptions, as the end of hints - but the wording of that page does suggest to me that the answer is likely to be "No"!) The difficulty is establishing the correct values to use for the apportionment of the base cost of the original shares between the ex-rights shares and the rights. Sometimes a company website include useful CGT-related information, possibly in a 'Shareholder information' or similarly-named section of an annual report, and you're in luck on this occasion: Balfour Beatty's 2009 annual report is available on its website, as, there's a 'Shareholder information' section one page from its end, and that section includes the following information about the rights issue: Rights issue On 17 September 2009, the Company announced a fully underwritten 3 for 7 rights issue at a subscription price of 180p per new ordinary share, representing a discount of approximately 46.8% to the closing middle market price of 344p per ordinary share on 16 September 2009, after adjustment for the 2009 interim dividend, to substantially finance the acquisition of Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. The rights issue and acquisition were approved by the holders of the Company’s ordinary shares at a general meeting on 7 October 2009 and the rights issue closed on 22 October 2009. The Company’s ordinary shares were quoted ex-rights by the London Stock Exchange on 8 October 2009 and their closing middle market price that day was 279.6p per share. The closing middle market price of an ordinary share immediately before the ex-rights date was 316p per share. Dealings in nil paid new ordinary shares commenced on 8 October 2009 and the closing middle market price of the nil paid new ordinary shares that day was 98.75p per share. The theoretical ex-rights price was 275.2p per ordinary share. The Company received valid acceptances in respect of 199,469,067 ordinary shares, representing approximately 97.06% of the total number of new ordinary shares offered to shareholders pursuant to the rights issue. In accordance with the arrangements set out in the rights issue prospectus, JPMorgan Cazenove Limited and RBS Hoare Govett Limited procured acquirers for the remaining 6,033,170 ordinary shares for which valid acceptances were not received, at a price of 287p per new ordinary share. 205,502,237 new ordinary shares were therefore issued, raising £352m after issue costs and expenses of £18m. Apportionment is done according to the closing prices on the first day of dealing after the rights issue (October 8 2009), so for a holding of say 10000 Balfour Beatty shares that produced 4285 rights (and a lost 5/7ths of a right): * Value of ex-rights shares = 10000 * 279.6p = £27,960.00. * Value of rights = 4285 * 98.75p = £4,231.44. * Combined value = £32,191.44. * The original acquisition cost is split accordingly, with a fraction £4,231.44/£32,191.44 going to the rights and £27,960.00/£32,191.44 going to the ex-rights shares. So if for instance the original acquisition cost was £50,000.00 (a price chart says it does look likely to have been appreciably higher in 2007 or 2008 than in 2009), £6,572.31 would go to the rights and £43,427.69 would be carried forward for the ex-rights shares. The lapsed-rights payment would be (per right) the 287p obtained for selling the corresponding shares, minus the 180p per right being raised by the company, minus the costs of the sale, so a bit under 107p per right. You'll presumably know how much that was from the number of rights and the payment received, but if say it was 106.4p per right, the 4285 rights would have produced a lapsed-rights payment of £4,559.24. That means that the gain calculation would have come out as £4,559.24 - £6,572.31 = -£2,013.07, i.e. a loss of £2,013.07. And the acquisition cost carried forward for the shares would be £43,427.69 rather than £50,000.00 - £4,559.24 = £45,440.76 as it would be under the 'small' capital distribution treatment. I.e. it would be lower by £2,013.07, resulting in any eventual gain being higher by that amount and CGT potentially higher by 20% of it, i.e. £402.61. (In general, when the 'small' capital distribution treatment is available, actually using it is always a similar trade-off between increases/decreases of realised capital gains/(losses) and equal-and-opposite decreases/increases of unrealised capital gains/(losses). You might not want the trade-off it offers you, e.g. because you might want to realise an extra capital loss because your net realised gains are over the CGT allowance. If you don't want it, you don't have to take it, i.e. the quote you've found is a bit over-prescriptive in the case when the capital distribution does count as 'small' - see to confirm this. Not that it matters in this case, as 'small' capital distribution treatment isn't on offer here.) Anyway, given the likely fall in value of the BBY holding between purchase in 2007 and 2008 and the rights issue in 2009, it does seem likely to me that the treatment as a part disposal would have realised a loss. Which may help to explain why there is nothing about it in the notes would have about the 2010 tax return: if realised gains elsewhere were obviously below the CGT allowance, one might very naturally not even think of looking for realised losses - and realised gains were likely to be rare in the 2009/10 tax year, given what the market had been doing... That might well have been a mistake, because if one has more realised losses than realised gains in a tax year, one can carry the excess losses forward and use them in a future tax year. But if that mistake was made, it's too late to correct it now: there's a deadline beyond which realised losses cannot be claimed, which for the 2009/2010 tax year I think was 5 April 2014 (not entirely certain of that, because there was a rules change about loss-claiming deadlines around 2009/2010 - but I am certain that it was no later than 31 January 2016). They might have been claimed before the deadline and if they were, they would then be 'in the system' and either have been used against gains in excess of the CGT allowance or still be available as carried-forward losses, but unless that happened (check the tax returns!), they're lost with no hope of recovery. Equally, though, if in the 2009/2010 tax year realised capital gains were below the CGT allowance and realised capital losses were below realised capital gains, there would probably have been no reason at all to either mention CGT in the tax return or claim the losses. So I'm not saying a mistake was made, just that it might have been and if it was, it is now uncorrectable. Gengulphus
Chat Pages: 330  329  328  327  326  325  324  323  322  321  320  319  Older
Your Recent History
Capital Ge..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20190519 19:11:05