Buy
Sell
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
  30.00 0.67% 4,520.00 4,500.00 4,510.00 4,530.00 4,500.00 4,530.00 22,479 15:35:01
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 7.8 6.4 59.1 76.5 550

Capital Gearing Share Discussion Threads

Showing 7851 to 7873 of 8325 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  321  320  319  318  317  316  315  314  313  312  311  310  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
07/10/2014
21:46
Numpties... Liberal Democrats plan CGT increases to pay for tax cuts Last updated: October 7, 2014 9:36 pm "...Mr Clegg wants to fund an across-the-board tax cut for 29m people by raising the capital gains tax rate for higher earners from 28 per cent to about 35 per cent. Currently £10,900 a year is exempt from CGT but that would be cut to £2,500 under the Lib Dem plan, raising a further £250m." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72d83ad4-4e44-11e4-bfda-00144feab7de.html
someuwin
18/9/2014
16:39
Barclays advice on CGT hTTps://wealth.barclays.com/en_gb/smartinvestor/better-investor/dont-get-caught-by-capital-gains-tax.html
david77
12/9/2014
20:54
Thank you Gengulphus...I will drop my SIPP provider a line.
karateboy
12/9/2014
08:00
karateboy, About your question 2, I'm fairly (but not absolutely) certain SIPPs remain exempt from Income Tax and CGT for as long as they actually remain SIPPs. But for added certainty, check with your SIPP provider whether the account will remain exempt before actually taking any action to change its status. (Note they cannot give you tax advice - i.e. tell you what they think you ought to do about tax - but they can (and should) give you tax facts about the account they're providing to you. So make certain any question you ask them is a factual one about the account. And if they respond saying they cannot give you tax advice, try again making it clear that you are after facts, not advice - it has been known for inexperienced customer service staff not to know the difference!) About your other questions, sorry, I cannot help - I don't understand the intricacies of SIPPs beyond my own very simple use of one! And as this thread's subject is CGT rather than SIPPs, it might be a good idea to find a thread about SIPPs and ask your question there... As a starting point, putting "SIPP" into the EPIC box above finds a number of threads ( http://uk.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/threads.php3?symbol=LSE%3ASIPP ). I haven't checked them out, though - that's your job! Gengulphus
gengulphus
11/9/2014
20:25
I have a SIPP which I want to start withdrawing income as soon as I am able to do so from age of 55. I believe I can take 25% of the SIPP value as lump sum tax free. I want to use the Lump sum to help my children to get into property ladder. My questions are.. 1.can I open another SIPP account as I am not retiring from my day job yet. 2.is my first SIPP still subject to no capital gain tax as it hopefully grows? 3. Is my first SIPP as it grows, the growth from date of crystallisation will not be included in the life time allowances? Thank you
karateboy
11/9/2014
20:17
I have a SIPP which I want to start withdrawing income as soon as I am able to do so from age of 55. I believe I can take 25% of the SIPP value as lump sum tax free. I want to use the Lump sum to help my children to get into property ladder. My questions are.. 1.can I open another SIPP account as I am not retiring from my day job yet. 2.is my first SIPP still subject to no capital gain tax as it hopefully grows? 3. Is my first SIPP as it grows, the growth from date of crystallisation will not be included in the life time allowances? Thank you
karateboy
10/9/2014
16:36
I'd suggest you post the input data that is producing the error - diagnosing software problems without knowing both the program and the data it is acting on is hard! Gengulphus
gengulphus
10/9/2014
11:35
Buy and sell 277 shares transections in RMG in October 2013 shows error not accepted in input info for CGTcalculator. Any help welcomed.
jrrhya
21/8/2014
22:38
Thanks Gengulphus I am so thankful now that most of my dealings are now in ISA's, especially since AIM shares were allowed!
royaloak
21/8/2014
15:27
AVS, sorry had not looked at the thread for a time, I opted for the income option of 110p per share, which I of course had a tax credit of 10% deducted from the gross. ... Not really - you were given a notional tax credit equal to 1/9th of the gross (where the 'gross' means the money that left the company and was received by you - they're one and the same, no actual money gets diverted to the taxman inbetween). For tax purposes, you're treated as having received both the actual cash and the tax credit as income, basic-rate tax is assessed at 10% on that income, and the tax credit is treated as having paid that basic-rate tax... The words "treated as" in that are important: a notional sum of money can neither be actual income for you nor actually pay your taxes! But it can be treated as doing either or both. ... I did not look too closely at the b/c shares. So I suspect that you are saying when I sell I will have to reduce my purchase price accordingly? Yes, though "accordingly" does not necessarily mean by the exact amount of the dividends you received - the calculations involve an apportionment according to market values and so will probably produce a somewhat different answer. More important, I'm not just saying that you might have to reduce your purchase price for your Ordinary shares if and when you sell them in the future. I'm also saying that you might already have realised a loss on your C / Deferred shares, without actually realising you've done so. Whether you have done so depends on whether the company has redeemed the Deferred shares, and if so, when. Gengulphus
gengulphus
21/8/2014
14:20
Gengulphus AVS, sorry had not looked at the thread for a time, I opted for the income option of 110p per share, which I of course had a tax credit of 10% deducted from the gross. I did not look too closely at the b/c shares. So I suspect that you are saying when I sell I will have to reduce my purchase price accordingly? Many thanks.
royaloak
16/8/2014
14:39
Thanks. I'll try and find out, it's an interesting one!
smurfy2001
16/8/2014
11:23
If l make a rental loss of say £10K and next tax year make capital gains exceeding the allowance (let's say £2K profit), will l still have to pay tax on the gains?? I don't quite get how the loss carries over is categorized i.e., if it's only allowed to offset income (such as future rent) against the loss??? My suspicion is that the rental loss can only be used against rental profits and not against capital gains, and I don't remember ever seeing anything in my study of the CGT rules indicating that rental losses can be used the way you want to. However, I cannot give a definite answer - the reason being that I've never had anything to do with property renting (*) and so have no experience of the rules about property income and losses. That also means that it's quite possible that I've encountered a mention of rental losses in my reading about CGT, skimmed over it as irrelevant to what I was interested in and so not remembered it. Afraid that's the best I can do. (*) As the property owner, that is - I have rented a property to live in myself in the past, but that gives no insight into the taxation of the owner of the property. Gengulphus
gengulphus
16/8/2014
11:02
I don't know if anyone knows the answer to this question.... If l make a rental loss of say £10K and next tax year make capital gains exceeding the allowance (let's say £2K profit), will l still have to pay tax on the gains?? I don't quite get how the loss carries over is categorized i.e., if it's only allowed to offset income (such as future rent) against the loss??? Hope someone can help!
smurfy2001
14/8/2014
14:53
Gengulphus - the shares that I'm currently transferring to my wife will (along with all of her current holding) be bed-and-ISA'd in their entirety. Neither she nor I will be buying further shares in the company in the foreseeable future. The shares that I plan to transfer back to me from my wife were transferred to her originally some 2 years ago. Again no complications will arise from any further buying/selling within 30 days.
largeronald
14/8/2014
14:42
largeronald, Gengulphus - thanks yet again. Until today, I was under the impression that the "last in first out" rule still applied. My life has just become considerably simpler. Yes, I remember that feeling of relief when I realised I was rid of that complication! Now if only they'd got rid of the 30-day rule as well, we might actually have something approaching simplicity... Just in case it matters: note that the transition rule at the start of the 2008/2009 tax year was that all the separately-dated holdings that had not been "matched" to sales before then by the previous rules got merged to form the initial Section 104 pool. In the case of a long-standing holding that you have previously both bought and sold, with some of the sales before the rules change, but haven't previously had to do CGT computations on (e.g. because the gains and losses in that year were too small), you might have to catch up on the previously not-done CGT computations so get the right initial state of the Section 104 pool. That catching-up would be done under the old rules and so might well involve the LIFO rule... I.e. not everyone has necessarily seen the last of the LIFO rule! :-( Gengulphus
gengulphus
14/8/2014
14:28
Gengulphus - I added this to my last post after you posted your reply to Royaloak, so I don't know if you saw it: I didn't, so a good thing you let me know! Sorry - just to clarify the example : My wife has 10,000 shares in company at an average cost of 50p per share - total £5000 I transfer to her 10,000 shares in company at an average cost of 150p per share - total £15000 My wife now has 20,000 shares at a total cost of £20,000 and therefore the average cost of each share is 100p. If she now transfers back to me 10,000 shares, then the cost of my holding would be regarded as £10000 for CGT purposes? Yes - again assuming that you avoid issues with the same-day and 30-day rules. In particular, I would strongly recommend taking care in any such manoeuvre to make the two transfers at least 31 days apart. Otherwise, you get silly situations such as: You transfer shares to your wife on July 1st (who didn't own any shares beforehand) and she transfers them all back to you on July 31st. Therefore you have disposed of the shares on July 1st and re-acquired them on July 31st, the 30th day after the disposal. That makes the 30-day rule apply, and it says that the shares you transfer to your wife on July 1st are treated as being the shares she transfers back to you on July 31st and having their acquisition costs. She meanwhile has acquired the shares on July 1st and disposed of them on July 31st. That's a perfectly normal disposal of a Section 104 pool resulting from a single acquisition, so the shares she transfers to you on July 13st are treated as being the shares you transfer to her on July 1st and having their acquisition cost. So what is the acquisition cost of the shares you transfer to her on July 1st? It's the acquisition cost of the shares she transfers to you on July 31st - but what's that? That's the acquisition cost of the shares you transfer to her on July 1st... We're going around in circles: all we know is that the acquisition costs of the shares transferred on July 1st and of those transferred on July 31st are identical, but we cannot tell what either of them actually is! Fortunately, in that case it turns out not to matter to any other part of the CGT computation what those two acquisition costs are. Things get more complex if your wife started with some shares, or if one or both of the transfers were of only part of the holding, which can result in the acquisition costs of the shares in each of the two transfers depending not just on each other but also on other costs... I'm reasonably certain that all such cases do either end up with pairs of costs that are equal but cannot be determined and don't affect the rest of the computation, or with costs that can be determined mathematically and come out sensibly. But actually resolving them properly is liable to make one's head spin - so I recommend avoiding the need to resolve such things! Gengulphus
gengulphus
14/8/2014
14:11
Gengulphus - thanks yet again. Until today, I was under the impression that the "last in first out" rule still applied. My life has just become considerably simpler.
largeronald
14/8/2014
13:56
largeronald, Your answer also mentions the "Section 104 pool" which I was previously unaware of. My guess is that there are quite a lot of people who are unaware of it. Well actually I'm quite certain of that, as there are a lot of people who are unaware of CGT rules at all! But I really mean even among those people who are aware of CGT rules, and in particular those are aware of them through occasional past dealings with CGT. The reason is that they were a feature of the CGT rules up to 1998, when they vanished in the replacement of indexation by taper relief. Taper relief needed to know how long you had held the shares, which meant that shares with different acquisition dates couldn't be pooled (the fact that people would have already pooled past purchases was dealt with by only starting taper relief from the day the change was announced - any shares bought earlier were treated as having been acquired on that day). So Section 104 pools vanished from the system apart from legacy holdings from before the change - and they could basically just be treated as though they had been bought on the day of the change, with the additional feature of having some frozen indexation on them. The taper relief system proved rather complicated (especially with regard to transfers between spouses, for which a holding could have different acquisition dates for different purposes...) and was eventually abolished in a rather sweeping simplification of CGT in 2008. And at that point the need for the system to track the acquisition dates of sold shares disappeared, and so Section 104 pools were re-introduced... A couple of years ago, when I was still gainfully employed (I am now retired), a company both I and my wife still have shares in announced a return of capital to its shareholders (which never actually happened as a straightforward dividend) and I was concerned that I (as a 40% taxpayer) would have to pay tax on any dividend received. As my wife was unemployed, I transferred all of my shareholding in said company to her. Would I be right in assuming that under the Section 104 pool rules, in effect, ALL of the shares now held by my wife would be considered as having the same average value e.g. 100p and if she transferred some back to me, that is the value that would be used for CGT when I sold them in the future? In effect, yes - assuming that the special cases I mentioned to do with the 30-day and same-day rules don't apply to that transfer back. By the way, I would generally recommend doing CGT calculations in terms of number of shares and total cost of those shares, rather than number of shares and cost per share. The calculations generally come out easier - for example, when you merge a new purchase into a Section 104 pool, the calculations are just two additions, of the numbers of shares and of the total costs. If you instead keep track of numbers of shares and average costs, it's still just a matter of adding the numbers of shares, but to get the average cost per share of the new pool requires each average cost to be multiplied by the corresponding number of shares, the two products to be added, and that sum to be divided by the sum of the numbers of shares to get the new pool's average cost per share... Gengulphus
gengulphus
14/8/2014
13:27
Gengulphus - I added this to my last post after you posted your reply to Royaloak, so I don't know if you saw it: Sorry - just to clarify the example : My wife has 10,000 shares in company at an average cost of 50p per share - total £5000 I transfer to her 10,000 shares in company at an average cost of 150p per share - total £15000 My wife now has 20,000 shares at a total cost of £20,000 and therefore the average cost of each share is 100p. If she now transfers back to me 10,000 shares, then the cost of my holding would be regarded as £10000 for CGT purposes?
largeronald
14/8/2014
12:56
Your answer also mentions the "Section 104 pool" which I was previously unaware of. A couple of years ago, when I was still gainfully employed (I am now retired), a company both I and my wife still have shares in announced a return of capital to its shareholders (which never actually happened as a straightforward dividend) and I was concerned that I (as a 40% taxpayer) would have to pay tax on any dividend received. As my wife was unemployed, I transferred all of my shareholding in said company to her. Would I be right in assuming that under the Section 104 pool rules, in effect, ALL of the shares now held by my wife would be considered as having the same average value e.g. 100p and if she transferred some back to me, that is the value that would be used for CGT when I sold them in the future? Sorry - just to clarify the example : My wife has 10,000 shares in company at an average cost of 50p per share - total £5000 I transfer to her 10,000 shares in company at an average cost of 150p per share - total £15000 My wife now has 20,000 shares at a total cost of £20,000 and therefore the average cost of each share is 100p. If she now transfers back to me 10,000 shares, then the cost of my holding would be regarded as £10000 for CGT purposes?
largeronald
14/8/2014
12:34
Gengulphus - thanks for your comprehensive reply. It's much appreciated. My reason for bed-and-ISAing is that the share price of the company is the lowest it has been for some years and I'm now in a small average loss situation. The total value of the shares is now round about the current ISA annual limit i.e. £15k. Added to this, I'm expecting the company to get taken over at any time within the next year or so which should substantially move the share price and I'm trying to avoid any CGT when (if) that happens.
largeronald
14/8/2014
11:52
largeronald, The question I have is whether by transferring the ones I have (which would currently show a profit) to my wife before selling, that profit would, in effect, be wiped out by my wife's ones, which would currently show a loss. Basically yes - but there are some technicalities to watch out for. The technical details are that when you transfer shares to your wife, the transfer is treated for CGT purposes as though she had paid you exactly the total of all your allowable costs for the shares (regardless of whether she actually paid you anything and if so, how much). So you are treated as disposing of the shares for exactly the amount you spent on them, resulting in you realising neither a gain nor a loss on them, and she is treated as having acquired your number of shares for your allowable costs, which effectively transfers your unrealised gain to her. In the normal course of events, the "Section 104 pool" rules then end up saying that the shares she has just acquired are pooled with the shares she already had, which results in her being treated as having a single holding of the combined number of shares acquired for the combined costs. That effectively nets off your gain against her loss. The technicalities to watch out for are the 'same-day' and '30-day' rules about acquisitions on the same day as or the next 30 days after a disposal (note the 30-day rule only applies that way around - there's no special rules for disposals in the next 30 days after an acquisition). So the situations to watch out for are: * If you acquire more shares of the same type on the day you transfer them to your wife or any of the next 30 days. * If your wife disposes of shares of the same type on the day you transfer them to your wife or any of the 30 preceding days. In those two cases, the results are liable to be a bit unexpected - in the first case, the allowable costs that get transferred to your wife will come partly or completely from your re-acquisitions rather than your original purchases; in the second, your wife's calculations of the realised gain or loss will be based on the shares sold coming first from the transferred shares and then (if necessary) from the shares she already had, rather than from the 'pool' of all of those combined. Royaloak - I haven't used my capital allowance for this year yet, but I'm trying to preserve it if I can for some other shares I'm planning on selling later this year. In that case, wouldn't you be better off preserving your wife's loss for possible use later in the year, in case the gains on those other shares turnout to be larger than expected? And preserving your own gain for possible use later in the year, in case the gains on those other shares turn out to be smaller than expected? As a general rule, I would try to do "CGT manoeuvre" transactions - i.e. ones done to optimise your CGT position rather than for underlying investment reasons - in the last month or two of the tax year (*) to minimise the risk that your carefully-designed outcome is derailed by (for instance) an unexpected takeover. E.g. if you realise a gain of £15k early in the tax year and decide to realise losses of £4k then and there in a loss-making share you own, you'll feel a bit silly if a later takeover then realises more losses for you, causing you to then need to realise more gains if you want to use your CGT allowance fully... Only a bit silly, I should emphasise, not grossly so: it costs you a bit more in trading costs, and by reducing both your unrealised gains and your unrealised losses by more than you needed to, it reduces your flexibility in dealing with future CGT issues. If there's a decent investment reason behind a trade, the usual rule is not to let the tax tail wag the investment dog - i.e. do the trade regardless of when the situation comes up in the tax year. But if it's just a CGT manoeuvre, leave it to near the end of the tax year. By the way, that doesn't really answer your question, as I don't know your precise reasons for wanting to bed-and-ISA the company concerned now rather than later. If for example you expect the shares to rise a fair amount in the rest of the tax year, getting them in now will shelter those expected future gains from CGT, and that's probably more important than preserving the flexibility of you having an unrealised gain and her a unrealised loss. But if you've no particular reason to do it now, it might well be better to leave the bed-and-ISAing (and quite possibly the choice of which share to bed-and-ISA) until later in the tax year when you have abetter idea what gains and losses you want to realise. (*) But not the last few days - give yourself some time to deal with unexpected snags! Gengulphus
gengulphus
Chat Pages: Latest  321  320  319  318  317  316  315  314  313  312  311  310  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
CGT
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:20201026 02:49:23