Capital Gearing Share Discussion Threads

[karateboy] 24/4/2012 21:08

Gengulphus

This is just to say thank you for your valuable advice in my case. I resubmitted my amended SA on Sunday per your advice with a note explaing the reason, and it was accepted by HMRC. They refunded my over payment. What an efficient organisation HMRC is. Thanks again for your very valuable advice. If you don't mind I would like to make a contribution to charity that you support. I do a lot of work for charities in my spare time. Running Marathon and cycling,...Last June I cycled across Britain for my charity from John O Groat to Lands End and collected 5000 pounds for them...

Regards....

[theuniversal] 24/4/2012 19:58

Gengulphus - 21 Apr'12 - 20:15 - 332 of 340 and 338

glad we share the same sentiment on post 338. as for 332 i am still shamefully ignorant of the maths and logic invloved with this. and cant get my head around it. but thanks for the helpful advice your posts are appreciated.

oh ps: post 332 was in regards to the cgt allowance (which you answered previously) but mentioned the £42000 bracket, which i didnt get at all.

[david77] 22/4/2012 10:29

G - Thanks

[gengulphus] 21/4/2012 22:43

david77,

I am saying that if I stick to deals in a tax year, then if I over/underpay in one year then it probably gets corrected in the following tax year if calculated on the same basis. I'm aware that if, in one year my gains are over the allowable limit but in the following gains are under the allowable limit, then I might pay tax that I need not have done.

Or the reverse could happen: you could end up not paying tax that you should have done. E.g. it's possible for either of "£10k net gains in each of two tax years" (resulting in no CGT due) and "£5k net gains in one tax year, £15k in the other" (resulting in £1,232 CGT due if a higher-rate taxpayer) to be the result of the correct share matchings and the other the result of the incorrect share matchings. One way around, you've paid £1,232 tax you needn't have; the other way around, you've not paid £1,232 tax you should have...

It can also fail to balance out for other reasons, such as emigration or death.

I guess that there are equal probabilities of it being in my favour or the tax man's, the difference being that he won't argue if it's in his favour while he could prosecute me if it's in mine!

I doubt that prosecution is likely, unless you were to extremely foolishly say things that implied it was deliberate criminal tax evasion or try to conceal what you'd done during the investigation. But interest, surcharges and penalties for periods that your tax was underpaid and a lack of anything to compensate for periods that it was overpaid are very likely... (Edit: all on the assumption that it is detected, of course. The most likely outcome is that it never gets investigated at all.)

Gengulphus

[gengulphus] 21/4/2012 22:23

theuniversal,

personally it sounds daft having this 30 day rule, ...

That's putting it very mildly... It's a totally bonkers rule as far as I'm concerned! It creates all sorts of messiness in the CGT calculations, and it has been very ineffective from the word go at really preventing the 'bed-and-breakfasting' form of tax avoidance it was supposedly aimed at. Literally within 24 hours of it being introduced in the 1998 Budget, tax advisers were contacting clients they'd told about bed-and-breakfasting to say "don't worry, you can still achieve the same outcome by any of this list of reasonably simple alternative techniques". (One of those techniques was the bed-and-spouse transactions discussed about 30 posts back, for example. They generally involve getting the timing and a few other details right, as indeed did the original bed-and-breakfasting technique, but nothing more complicated than that.)

Gengulphus

[david77] 21/4/2012 21:45

I am saying that if I stick to deals in a tax year, then if I over/underpay in one year then it probably gets corrected in the following tax year if calculated on the same basis. I'm aware that if, in one year my gains are over the allowable limit but in the following gains are under the allowable limit, then I might pay tax that I need not have done.

I guess that there are equal probabilities of it being in my favour or the tax man's, the difference being that he won't argue if it's in his favour while he could prosecute me if it's in mine!

Edit - I always start my tax data with pool quantities, pool costs, and date of last deal at the start of a tax year.

[karateboy] 21/4/2012 21:43

Thanks Gengulphus. I believe I should re-submit my SA for 2010/2011 as you suggested. Well weather is not that good , so I may do it tomorrow! Can I include the whole of Q1 2011/12 transactions or just up to 5th of May for 2010/11 recalculations? It should not make a difference. Thanks again.

[gengulphus] 21/4/2012 21:43

david77,

If your data covers 30 days beyond both ends of a tax year, and you then tell my prog on www.stonebanks.co.uk to cover the tax year, then I think that it does the maths correctly.

Afraid not with regard to the "30 days beyond both ends of a tax year" part. You can completely safely leave out trades data more than 30 days after the end of the tax year - it cannot affect share matchings for sales in the tax year.

But trades data before the start of the tax year might possibly affect the share matchings for sales in the tax year no matter how far back it is. As a somewhat silly example, suppose I have the following trading record:

A) Jan 07: Buy 2000 shares
B) Jan 14: Sell 1000 shares
C) Jan 21: Buy 1000 shares
D) Jan 28: Sell 1000 shares
E) Feb 07: Buy 1000 shares
F) Feb 14: Sell 1000 shares
G) Feb 21: Buy 1000 shares
H) Feb 28: Sell 1000 shares
I) Mar 07: Buy 1000 shares
J) Mar 14: Sell 1000 shares
K) Mar 21: Buy 1000 shares
L) Mar 28: Sell 1000 shares
M) Apr 07: Buy 1000 shares
N) Apr 14: Sell 1000 shares
O) Apr 21: Buy 1000 shares

Under the 30-day rule, sell B will be matched to buy C, then sell D will be matched to buy E, and so on, until eventually sell N is matched to buy O.

But if buy C hadn't been done, then under the 30-day rule sell B will be matched to buy E, then sell D will be matched to buy G, etc, until sell L is matched to buy O. Then there is nothing for sell N to match under the 30-day rule, so it matches half of the section 104 pool consisting of buy A alone.

So the correct way to match sell N (in the new tax year) to a purchase depends on the presence or absence of buy C back in January, and it makes a difference of more than 3 months to when the matched purchase occurred. And if you only give the calculator data for 30 days before the start of that new tax year, i.e. back to and including buy I, it cannot determine which is the correct way to match sell N...

Clearly that trading pattern could be extended back almost indefinitely (*), causing the presence or absence of a buy many years ago to make a difference to whether a sale this month is matched to a buy a week later or to part of a buy many years ago - which could make a huge difference to what the gain or loss is!

The exact details in that example are of course very contrived. But something similar is not totally implausible in some real-life situations, for instance if someone has been persistently and frequently doing short-term trades in a share. Going back many years seems decidedly unlikely to be needed, but needing to go back more than 30 days could well happen occasionally. And I've no real idea how long is likely to be enough...

(*) "Almost" because you do eventually get back to before the introduction of the 30-day rule if you go back far enough!

Gengulphus

[gengulphus] 21/4/2012 20:56

david77,

I'm not qualified to give advice, but if it was me, I'd ignore it. What you overpaid in a previous year will show up as a lower gain in a later year. ...

If you:

* calculate 2010/2011's gains and losses on the basis of an incorrect application of the share identification rules for sales towards the end of 2010/2011;

* then calculate 2011/2012's gains and losses on the basis of an application of the share identification rules that includes correctly applying them to all sales in 2010/2011;

which I think is what karateboy was describing, then no, it won't necessarily all come out in the wash in the way you're thinking. The reason is that when the gains and losses in the two tax returns are put together, you'll find that the inconsistent share matchings in the two mean that some purchases have been matched twice and others not at all, rather than all purchases being matched exactly once as they are supposed to end up.

Gengulphus

[gengulphus] 21/4/2012 20:42

karateboy,

I got a feeling due to 30 day rule I may have paid too much CGT for 2010-2011!!. This is what happened. For 2010 -2011, I only included my share transactions up to 5/4/2011. As this is the last day of 2010-2011 financial year. I run CGT calculator and provided my SA to Tax Office and paid about £2500 in CGT. Nothing to do tonight, I started preparing my Tax return for 2011/2012 tax year! As part of my preparation, I used CGT calculator to calculate my CGT for 2011/2012. However I noticed that my CGT calculations for 2010/2011 is different when I included in the calculations , my share transactions for q1 2011/2012. CGT Calculator for 201-2011 now calculates that I may have paid about £2500 extra in CGT. First I thought I have done something wrong, checked the input data for Q1 2011/2012 and noticed that I have bought 2 shares back within 30 days of selling them in March 2011 ...My question is , do you agree that this may be the cause for my overpayment, ...

Yes, it may well - in calculating the realised gains and losses for a tax year, you are supposed to match the sales to the purchases correctly according to the share identification rules. The date that a gain or loss is realised is the date of the sale, and the sale can be matched to purchases up to 30 days after it, so to guarantee getting the matching done correctly, you need to include trades in the first 30 days of the following tax year - i.e. up to and including May 5th. (And that incidentally means all trades in those 30 days, not just purchases. It's fairly unusual for a sale in those 30 days to affect how purchases in those 30 days match sales in the previous tax year, but it can happen.)

... and more importantly how can I get refunded for this ? ...

Amend your 2010/2011 tax return to have the correct CGT computations and figures derived from them in it. Probably also amend an appropriate additional information box to include a comment saying that the amendment is to correct an error in applying the share identification rules, due to failing to take trades in the first 30 days of the 2011/2012 tax year into account. HMRC will then recalculate your tax and, assuming you're right about less tax being owed, credit your account with the difference.

Information about amending your tax return and getting a refund can be found at .

Gengulphus

[gengulphus] 21/4/2012 20:15

theuniversal,

1)No - provided realisations are less than four times the allowance (ie £42,400)
what are realisations? an example would be helpful

The same thing as I called "disposal proceeds" (the taxman's term for them) in my reply: the amount you are paid for the assets you sold, without deducting sales costs. For shares, that means the number of shares times the price per share listed in the contract note.

Gengulphus

[karateboy] 21/4/2012 18:35

"How do you people deal with this?" - ''I don't, but I've been told that that is wrong.''

Dave,

Please elaborate on what is 'WRONG' ? and what do you mean 'you won't' Are you saying it is wrong to buy shares back within 30 days? or the calculation is wrong! There is nothing illegal about buying shares within 30 days...In my case, it cost me more on CGT , despite the fact that my new purchase was in the next financial year!!..However as we have discussed it here, it will sort itself out over times..That is my understanding of 30 day rule. If one sells his/her shares early and as a result of good news share started going up, there is nothing 'Wrong' to buy them back, regardless of 30 day rule. .
Regardless of which calculator you use, the question I was asking was a technical one not a moral one...Do you restrict your end of year CGT calculations to 5th of April as far as share transactions are concerned? or it is better to add a month or so..to end of financial year to allow correct CGT calculation

[theuniversal] 21/4/2012 15:22

personally it sounds daft having this 30 day rule, a new tax year is a new tax year...if it was me i wouldn't buy any shares of the same company during this 30 day rule date , only after.. the tax man doesnt always get things right. to me this is a grey area.

[david77] 21/4/2012 09:33

"How do you people deal with this?" - I don't, but I've been told that that is wrong.

If your data covers 30 days beyond both ends of a tax year, and you then tell my prog on www.stonebanks.co.uk to cover the tax year, then I think that it does the maths correctly.

[karateboy] 21/4/2012 08:36

Thanks Guys. How one should avoid 30 day rule complications ? I guess one way is not to buy back the shares you sold within the 30 day rule. Generally if one had bought back within a year, they will sort themselves out. However if you sell shares in March and buy them back in April, it is better to include, the Q1 of your transactions for the next financial year into your calculations for the current year. This way if you have sold shares in Q4 of the current year and bought them back in Q1 of the next year, 30 day rule will be included in the calculations.... How do you people deal with this?

[david77] 21/4/2012 08:09

I'm not qualified to give advice, but if it was me, I'd ignore it. What you overpaid in a previous year will show up as a lower gain in a later year. Of course, if your gains in the following year are insufficient to pay tax then you may have lost the tax paid, but with tax at 18%, probably not enough to lose sleep over.

[rangers99] 20/4/2012 23:36

Yes of course. Buying back within 30 days of the tax year end can affect your tax liability even though the trade was made after the tax year ended.

Not sure how you get a refund. If it were me I'd just write a letter with all the details.

[karateboy] 20/4/2012 23:28

Gengulphus ,

Please help to clarify...

I got a feeling due to 30 day rule I may have paid too much CGT for 2010-2011!!. This is what happened. For 2010 -2011, I only included my share transactions up to 5/4/2011. As this is the last day of 2010-2011 financial year. I run CGT calculator and provided my SA to Tax Office and paid about £2500 in CGT. Nothing to do tonight, I started preparing my Tax return for 2011/2012 tax year! As part of my preparation, I used CGT calculator to calculate my CGT for 2011/2012. However I noticed that my CGT calculations for 2010/2011 is different when I included in the calculations , my share transactions for q1 2011/2012. CGT Calculator for 201-2011 now calculates that I may have paid about £2500 extra in CGT. First I thought I have done something wrong, checked the input data for Q1 2011/2012 and noticed that I have bought 2 shares back within 30 days of selling them in March 2011 ...My question is , do you agree that this may be the cause for my overpayment, and more importantly how can I get refunded for this ? Can I contact them now, or claim it as part of my SA for 2011/2012 . To include 30 day rule complications, we should really include , share transactions up to 6/may of the next financial year for this year CGT calculations.

Regards...

[royaloak] 20/4/2012 23:13

sirraman

I trade cfd's with iglevel 2, last tax year I had over 80 pages A4 of calculations.

IG email me for the tax year and compile all my gains, all my losses and all my commissions and carrying costs, which I print off and enter these in SA108 any other information.

As it is a certfied copy from IG HMRC have always accepted it.

[daytraders] 20/4/2012 22:00

Think it means if you sold shares worth more than £42,400, but wait for the experts to confirm.

[theuniversal] 20/4/2012 21:01

thanks miata and gengulphus. just one more thing to clear up what does this mean:

1)No - provided realisations are less than four times the allowance (ie £42,400)
what are realisations? an example would be helpful

[arab3] 20/4/2012 18:24

thank you miata

[miata] 20/4/2012 18:06

You don't have to wait until they are put on the HMRC list to make a claim.
However when a company is in the hands of administrators you will probably need them to have announced that they are certain that the company has insufficient assets for the shareholders to receive anything for your claim to succeed.