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
  -10.00 -0.23% 4,420.00 4,410.00 4,420.00 4,420.00 4,420.00 4,420.00 10,588 14:47:16
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 4.7 3.7 51.1 86.5 484

Capital Gearing Share Discussion Threads

Showing 8226 to 8249 of 8275 messages
Chat Pages: 331  330  329  328  327  326  325  324  323  322  321  320  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
22/8/2019
13:01
Hi Gengulphus, great to see your generosity in sharing your knowledge. Many thanks. I have a question about CGT tax bracket. I have a company where I receive all my income in dividends and I pay dividend tax rate. For CGT, would I be classified as Basic Rate payer or High rate payer since I don't receive any salaried income ?
attrader
22/8/2019
11:47
Hi Gengulphus, I am a lifelong UK resident. In the 18/19 tax year I opened an Australian CFD (Contracts for difference) account with IG due to new ESMA regulations which came into force in the UK during 18/19 which meant to speculate on my UK CFD account the margin requirements / commission rates were stricter / higher. Basically, I live in the UK and speculate on UK stocks only using the CFD account opened in Australia. Have you any idea on tax treatment for this ? On Gov.uk website I found this :- hTtps://www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/taxed-twice Which states this :- Capital Gains Tax You’ll usually pay tax in the country where you’re resident and be exempt from tax in the country where you make the capital gain. You will not usually need to make a claim. You have to pay Capital Gains Tax on UK residential property even if you’re not UK resident. When to claim relief There are different rules if your gain comes from an asset that either: cannot be taken out of the country, such as land or a house you’re using for business in that country You’ll need to pay tax in both countries and get relief from the UK. ......... Can I take from above that I would declare as normal UK capital gains ? There would be no need to claim relief as the different rules do not apply in my case (therefore I wouldn't be double taxed CGT in both the UK and AUS ?) Many Thanks.
american idiot
20/8/2019
08:40
Unaffected by the recent Equity wobble, steady growth over the years, safe as any any to park your money
andyadvfn1
09/8/2019
17:18
jacobsdad, a quick query- if in the tax yr 18/19 I had made say £5k gains but also £5k losses-does the £5k loss carry forward? Afraid not. Losses must be used against gains realised in the same tax year as far as possible - it's only losses in excess of the gains realised in the same tax year that can start being carried forward. So in your scenario, the losses neatly cancel out with the gains. Just to be clear: this is about £5k gains realised in the 2018/19 tax year and £5k losses also realised in the 2018/19 tax year. If instead you had £5k gains realised in the 2018/19 tax year and £5k losses brought forward from the 2017/18 tax year, the situation would be different: brought-forward losses only have to be used to reduce gains above the CGT allowance, so in that case the losses wouldn't have to be used and could continue being carried forward from the 2018/19 tax year to the 2019/20 tax year. also just to clarify if in tax yr 18/19 I had made say £20k gains but also £5k losses-would that have meant £20k-£11700 allowance=£8300 taxable gain,then-£5k loss=£3300 then taxable ? Yes, though you've not got the order quite right: first offset the losses £20k-£5k = £15k, then use the CGT allowance £15k-£11.7k = £3.3k. Same result, though! In fact, if you do the calculation as first same-year losses, then CGT allowance, then brought-forward losses, with unused losses being carried forward but unused allowance being lost, you'll generally get the right answer. Gengulphus
gengulphus
09/8/2019
13:30
£3300 taxable is my understanding
rahosi
28/7/2019
12:19
a quick query- if in the tax yr 18/19 I had made say £5k gains but also £5k losses-does the £5k loss carry forward? also just to clarify if in tax yr 18/19 I had made say £20k gains but also £5k losses-would that have meant £20k-£11700 allowance=£8300 taxable gain,then-£5k loss=£3300 then taxable ?
jacobsdad
09/7/2019
20:35
finkwot, With regard to the small number of shares, I've thought of something that I think worth checking: you have taken account of the terms of the merger that formed CGNU, haven't you? According to https://www.investegate.co.uk/norwich-union-plc---011-/rns/merger-of-cgu---norwich-union---part-1/200002210701478869F/, they were 48 CGNU shares per 100 Norwich Union shares, so 150 Norwich Union shares would have become 72 CGNU shares. With regard to the dates, there are generally quite a lot of different dates associated with corporate actions, and I wouldn't be at all surprised about someone being confused about exactly which one applies for CGT purposes - indeed, I don't know myself in many cases! I generally don't worry unduly about that - it only makes any difference for CGT purposes if the uncertainty affects which tax year the corporate action is treated as being in, and I only have to be able to truthfully declare that my tax return is complete and correct "to the best of my knowledge and belief" (not "to my certain knowledge") and that I'm not underpaying tax (I'd prefer not to be overpaying either, of course, but I can hardly get into trouble for it!). A final comment related to that is that if all else fails, a tax return based on the shares having no acquisition cost can hardly get you into trouble for the same reason: it's reasonable to rely on the record you've got if you can't find anything to contradict it, and zero acquisition cost can only result in overpaying CGT, not underpaying it. Gengulphus
gengulphus
05/7/2019
11:20
Thanks, that's an interesting idea which hadn't occurred to me. Two things argue against it - the minimum windfall was 150 shares, and the number acquired here is less than that (conceivably some may have been sold, but for such a small number it seems unlikely); also the demutualisation seems to have finally gone through in June, rather than May. So it's possible, but on the whole I think the other explanation is more likely. (Which is a slight relief as the tax bill will be fractionally lower if I can establish a cost for the shares). Still, if nothing else adds up I may revisit it.
finkwot
04/7/2019
17:26
finkwot, I'm working from a list of Commercial Union share acquisitions from 1982 to 1997, giving number of shares, month of acquisition and total cost for each. What puzzles me is that one entry, for May 1997, gives only the number of shares acquired; the cost column is left blank. The totals of all shares acquired and of cost for the whole series of acquisitions have been added up carefully, with no allowance for the cost of the May 1997 acquisition. Apart from this, the record was prepared conscientiously (there are multiple pages of other records for other shareholdings; this is the only lacuna I've found). There are two possible explanations I can think of - either there was some complication and the person who kept the records was unsure how to calculate the cost, so left it blank intending to add it later, or for some reason he thought the cost was nil. As someone who tries to be pretty conscientious about such things myself, uncertainty sounds more likely to me - if I had genuinely decided the cost was nil for some reason, I would enter zero, while leaving it blank would mean not yet known. As for reasons why it's not yet known, there is a similar omission in my records, due to a contract note from the early 1990s that I've mislaid. I know I've never deliberately destroyed it, but it's been missing for a very long time now. Hopefully it will eventually turn up... I do tend to mark such known omissions on spreadsheets with a red background, as a general warning that something needs changing before it's used. But that sort of precaution could easily have been inadvertently left not done, or simply not thought of. And of course there's no guarantee that one person's conscientiousness takes exactly the same form as another's! So all this is about is suggesting which answer I think more likely, not anything definite about what it is. So my question now is, are there any circumstances in which shares can be acquired at nil cost for CGT purposes? Yes - if someone gives you shares that are genuinely worth nothing at the time of the gift. A gift generally brings the 'market value' rule into play and so the shares are deemed to have been acquired at their market value at the time, but if that market value is zero... But those circumstances are hardly likely to apply here! And while I can also think of circumstances in which a share can have its base cost reduced to zero after purchase (it can happen as a result of using the 'small capital distribution' treatment on a share that has risen hugely after purchase, or that has made a whole series of small capital distributions), those also seem unlikely to apply here - and it would also require something esoteric to make it happen to one acquisition and not the rest as well... I nearly submitted this post saying there might well be other ways to acquire shares with no acquisition cost and indeed had a nagging feeling I'd seen at least one more in the past, but couldn't remember any details. But it has now sprung to mind and it seems quite plausible - though obviously only you can be in any sort of position to tell whether it's what happened. It's to do with building societies, etc, that demutualised, and I've found a couple of HMRC Capital Gains Manual pages in the area: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg56820 https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg13028 (and possibly its next page as well) If I read them correctly, when a building society demutualises and gives its members free shares, a share account in its original mutual version gets reorganised into a cash account in its new version plus the free shares. The normal rules about cash accounts say that the CGT value of the old share account and of the new cash account are both simply their cash balances, and the normal rules about reorganisations of financial assets preserving CGT value say that the initial CGT value of the free shares is the difference between them, i.e. zero. Or in other words, the acquisition cost of the free shares is zero. I saw no reason why the same shouldn't apply to demutualisations of other mutual organisations, and I knew that some insurance businesses were mutual organisations (and indeed some still are). So that did seem to be a reasonably plausible reason for the shares in your case to have zero acquisition cost. And a little bit of digging on Wikipedia said that Aviva was a renaming of CGNU, which was formed by CGU and Norwich Union merging in 2000. Chasing those further, I found that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_Union contains the sentence "In 1997, its bicentenary year, Norwich Union demutualised and floated as a public limited company on the London Stock Exchange." So there is a plausible-looking source for the odd, not very large number of shares acquired with no acquisition cost in May 1997. I emphasise that all I can say is that it looks plausible. I'm not certain that my understanding of the Capital Gains Manual is correct even with regard to building societies; if it is, I'm not certain whether it extends to other mutual organisations as well, I don't know which mutual organisations that demutualised the owner of these shares belonged to, I don't know whether Norwich Union's demutualisation produced free shares, etc, etc, etc! I'm also pretty certain the HMRC material I very dimly recollect seeing many years ago is not the manual pages I've linked to above - it would have had to be in a much more easily-found place and written in a much more user-friendly way to have come to my attention back then! But I've not managed to find it again... So treat what I've said about Norwich Union as a suggested line of enquiry, not a definite answer! Gengulphus
gengulphus
01/7/2019
20:45
Gengulphus, Thanks. I've found some of the information I need, still looking for some. I'm working from a list of Commercial Union share acquisitions from 1982 to 1997, giving number of shares, month of acquisition and total cost for each. What puzzles me is that one entry, for May 1997, gives only the number of shares acquired; the cost column is left blank. The totals of all shares acquired and of cost for the whole series of acquisitions have been added up carefully, with no allowance for the cost of the May 1997 acquisition. Apart from this, the record was prepared conscientiously (there are multiple pages of other records for other shareholdings; this is the only lacuna I've found). There are two possible explanations I can think of - either there was some complication and the person who kept the records was unsure how to calculate the cost, so left it blank intending to add it later, or for some reason he thought the cost was nil. So my question now is, are there any circumstances in which shares can be acquired at nil cost for CGT purposes? It's an odd and not very large number of shares, so I doubt it was a straightforward market purchase. There was a dividend payment in May 1997, so it might have been a scrip dividend. The value of the shares acquired is rather higher than the value of the dividend (it would add up if the share price had been 570p, but it was in a range either side of 700p in May 1997), but at the 1996 AGM a motion was proposed to allow scrip dividends to be paid at a higher level than the cash dividends (for reasons to do with Advance Corporation Tax). The example given in the 1996 proposal is for an increase of 25% over the cash level, which would give a price of 712.5p, so this may be a possible explanation for the origin of the shares. I don't believe it could justify an acquisition at nil cost, but it might explain uncertainty about what the correct figure was. However, the notes with the 1996 AGM letter have a fairly clear explanation of the tax implications, and the record-keeper has done much more complex calculations elsewhere without apparent difficulty, so I'm still puzzled. Also, I haven't yet discovered if there was in fact a scrip alternative for the May 1997 dividend, and if so, whether it was at a higher level than the cash dividend. (edited 1 July 22.18)
finkwot
24/6/2019
21:43
finkwot, I'm afraid I can't really help with questions about the 31 March 1982 rule - it predates all my experience with shares (though only by a few years in the case of my small number of BT shares held ever since the first round of privatisation). On historical prices, I do have copies of the CGNU annual reports for 2000 and 2001 - I've never owned CGNU shares, but I downloaded them from Aviva's archived reports page years ago when they were still there. (now the only trace left of that on https://www.aviva.com/investors/reports/ seems to be the statement "Please note that all presentations before the Group's name change to Aviva plc on July 1, 2002 will be branded CGNU plc." at the bottom of a list whose earliest entry is dated in 2004...). Unfortunately, they don't contain anything about CGT - some companies make a habit of putting CGT information into an end-of-report "Shareholder information" section, but apparent not CGNU/Aviva. Apart from that, the only thing I can suggest for a share price that long back is that I know that years ago, the London Stock Exchange ran a paid-for service called something like the Historic(al) Price(s) Service - I've used it once around 15 years ago. Whether they still do, whether its charges are reasonable if it does, etc, I'll have to leave you to investigate. Gengulphus
gengulphus
24/6/2019
18:56
That's a very helpful answer Gengulphus. Many thanks.
bunlop
24/6/2019
17:23
bunlop, I know the rules for matching share sales to purchases for CGT purposes. However I find myself with two brokers at the moment with some common holdings in both accounts. I assume that for CGT purposes they are merged and treated as if I just had one account. Is this correct? Yes. And if by any chance you have certificated shares as well, they get merged in as well. Basically, all shares of any particular type that you own outside tax shelters get treated as a single holding for CGT purposes. Note that the type of a share includes both the company that it's in and what class of share it is, which might occasionally be relevant, as there are some companies that have multiple publicly-traded types of share, such as Royal Dutch Shell with both RDSA and RDSB shares, Schroders and similar companies with both voting (SDR) and non-voting (SDRC) shares, and various companies with both ordinary and preference shares. Also note that it's beneficial ownership that counts, not legal ownership. That mainly matters for nominee accounts, where the broker's nominee company is the legal owner (essentially as trustee for you) but that doesn't let you off the CGT hook as beneficial owner, and for jointly-held shares, for which (typically) spouses own half of the shares each beneficially and so are responsible for accounting for half of the gains and losses each. Gengulphus
gengulphus
15/6/2019
18:22
I know the rules for matching share sales to purchases for CGT purposes. However I find myself with two brokers at the moment with some common holdings in both accounts. I assume that for CGT purposes they are merged and treated as if I just had one account. Is this correct? Many thanks.
bunlop
15/6/2019
17:27
Is it true that to calculate CGT on shares acquired before 31 March 1982 I have to use the price on 31 March 1982? Is this obligatory even if that is to my disadvantage? Do I take the original costs of acquisition and add them to the share price on that date? Is there any simple way to find out share prices for that date? I hope it would be easier than for other dates in 1982. Also, when did this rule come into effect? I ask because I'm working from notes prepared by someone else, and I don't know if he has recorded the original price at acquisition, or the 31/3/1982 price. If I can't find out the relevant price I may have to assume he already updated his records when the rule came in, but that depends when it happened. Thanks in advance for help with any of this.
finkwot
12/6/2019
08:29
Before I write a long question about tax implications of corporate activity going back into the 1980s, is there anywhere online I can find an archive of RNS announcements going back to 1993? Alternatively is there anywhere online I can find annual reports for Commercial Union, which disappeared under that name in 1998 and eventually became Aviva? The Aviva website is useless, and my email to them has been ignored. Edit: I have had a reply but not yet any information - I'm hopeful it will be forthcoming.
finkwot
11/4/2019
16:55
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
21/2/2019
17:36
Could have died laughing....
rahosi
20/2/2019
14:11
I think the best simplification of capital gains deferred by subscribing for VCTs (before 2004) is described in https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/venture-capital-schemes-manual/vcm53140 - but I'm in no hurry to use it! ;-) Gengulphus
gengulphus
20/2/2019
12:32
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
19/2/2019
17:53
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 https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/venture-capital-schemes-manual/vcm53000 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
18/2/2019
11:31
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
rahosi
30/1/2019
13:55
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.
gbh2
25/1/2019
16:45
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
gengulphus
Chat Pages: 331  330  329  328  327  326  325  324  323  322  321  320  Older
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:20200127 15:27:10