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 Shares Traded Last Trade
  10.00 0.21% 4,730.00 32,203 16:35:14
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
4,710.00 4,730.00 4,720.00 4,710.00 4,710.00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 7.78 6.37 59.12 80.0 576
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
16:35:14 UT 80 4,730.00 GBX

Capital Gearing (CGT) Latest News (2)

Capital Gearing News

Date Time Source Headline
20/1/202116:50UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Issue of Equity
20/1/202112:23UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Net Asset Value(s)
19/1/202117:04UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Issue of Equity
19/1/202112:39UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Net Asset Value(s)
18/1/202116:49UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Issue of Equity
18/1/202113:18UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Net Asset Value(s)
15/1/202117:11UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Issue of Equity
15/1/202112:21UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Net Asset Value(s)
14/1/202116:41UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Issue of Equity
14/1/202112:18UKREGCapital Gearing Tst Net Asset Value(s)
More Capital Gearing News
Capital Gearing Investors    Capital Gearing Takeover Rumours

Capital Gearing (CGT) Discussions and Chat

Capital Gearing Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
14/1/202110:49CAPITAL GAINS TAX - with links to resources1,178
12/10/202009:43Capital Gearing – A Perfect Trust65
30/4/202018:34CAPITAL GAINS TAX6,929
23/1/201222:40Trading tax effieciently from abroad-
21/2/201110:20HELP - CAPITAL GAINS TAX7

Add a New Thread

Capital Gearing (CGT) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2021-01-20 16:35:144,730.00803,784.00UT
2021-01-20 16:01:284,720.001,51071,272.00AT
2021-01-20 15:45:354,712.021507,068.03O
2021-01-20 15:38:284,715.0042419,991.60O
2021-01-20 15:37:074,715.001697,968.35O
View all Capital Gearing trades in real-time

Capital Gearing (CGT) Top Chat Posts

Capital Gearing Daily Update: Capital Gearing Trust Plc is listed in the Equity Investment Instruments sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker CGT. The last closing price for Capital Gearing was 4,720p.
Capital Gearing Trust Plc has a 4 week average price of 4,640p and a 12 week average price of 4,410p.
The 1 year high share price is 4,720p while the 1 year low share price is currently 3,800p.
There are currently 12,178,163 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 28,100 shares. The market capitalisation of Capital Gearing Trust Plc is £576,027,109.90.
dean moriarty: I have never paid CGT. I may soon have to. Unfortunately I have lost the stock trading documents from previous deals, mostly loses, and brokers like Beaufort who I used have closed. Can you please tell me the best way to obtain copies to prove loses or do I submit recreated records mentioned by HMRC?
pedr01: 1166:- bunlop, In the absence of a "proper" answer from G, and given that it is effectively proceeds from RCN and you received monies this year, I would include a dummy buy/sale into my CGT calculations/summary sheets for this year, viz; Stonebanks pseudo => Dummy RCN (DRCN) ; Dummy buy/sale to adjust for £1305 payment 06/08/20, B, 1305, 0.0, 0.0 ; from RCN Shareholders Compensation scheme. 06/08/20, S, 1305, 100.0, 1305 ; Original RCN shares sold on 07/11/16 Is this correct? Who knows, but it is what I would be doing the circumstances unless advised otherwise. Originally I thought you should adjust your 2016-2017 calculations/tax return, but then you only received the money this year???
thamestrader: Threats to GCT rates and exempt allowances have raised their ugly heads again! This from Interactive Investor (a similar item in today's Daily Mail (my friend says)): ----- The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) today released a report suggesting 9changes to CGT) could raise £14 billion. .... Currently, basic-rate taxpayers pay 10% tax on capital gains, above a £12,300 a year threshold. Higher-rate taxpayers pay 20%. ... The OTS suggested doubling this to bring CGT more in line with income tax. ... The (OTS) also suggested lowering the CGT threshold to as little as £1,000 to increase the number of people paying it. ----- No mention of timing, and if the Autumn budget/statement is cancelled, maybe it won't apply from April 2021, but the year after?
gengulphus: Does anyone else out there think CGT might be an easy target for the chancellor in his quest to fill the financial black hole caused by Covid? I don't. A target, quite possibly - but not an easy target... It's not easy because to a large extent, CGT is a voluntary tax - make changes designed to raise more CGT from investors, and investors are likely to respond by changing their strategies to be more likely to hold on to investments carrying a large unrealised capital gain rather than selling them and realising the gain... Doing that won't always be possible - sometimes people need the cash or the sale is compulsory for one reason or another - but I suspect there will be plenty who shift to a long-term buy & hold strategy if CGT becomes a serious burden... Also, the investors most likely to want not to do that are those who use shorter-term 'trading' strategies. But many of them will have bought their shares last year and so will be sitting on plenty of unrealised losses, not gains... He might remove the £12300 allowance, he might increase rates, he might do both. Removing the CGT allowance strikes me as very unlikely, at least as things stand. Why? Because then everybody who makes even a small capital gain becomes liable to account for CGT, either in a tax return or using some sort of adjustment to their tax code - but that adjustment is likely to change every year, in a hard-to-predict way, so would require some sort of annual return from the taxpayer anyway. Either way, there would be a big increase in the number of CGT returns HMRC would need to process, quite often for very small amounts of tax collected - so removing the CGT allowance entirely would probably not be cost-effective because of high collection costs relative to the amount of tax collected. And in addition, it would also have high political costs for the government - a CGT return is a distinctly user-unfriendly bit of bureaucracy and making large numbers of voters do them who hadn't had to before is likely to alienate a considerable number of voters! That said, I do think reducing the CGT allowance might be an option for the Chancellor. E.g. halving it rather than removing it entirely would affect far fewer taxpayers and would tend to be focussed on those with the largest capital gains among those who currently don't pay CGT, as well as producing a substantial increase in CGT collected from those who do currently pay CGT. That's more likely to be cost-effective from the Chancellor's point of view, both with regard to collection costs and political costs. And increasing CGT rates is also an option. But both reducing the allowance and increasing rates are going to be limited in terms of how much they're likely to raise, due to the 'largely a voluntary tax' nature of CGT mentioned above. Various parts of that assume that the structure of CGT and collecting it remain largely as they are at present, and there are possibilities available for more fundamental revisions of CGT that would change the argument. For instance, brokers cannot currently give definitive statements about what capital gains and losses have been realised by sales in a broker account they provide, because if the accountholder has other holdings of a share (either certificated or held with another broker), CGT rules require the capital gains and losses to be calculated from the merged transaction record for all the holdings, not separately for each holding and the results added together. If CGT were revised to work on a 'separately on each holding and add together' basis, it would become possible for brokers to produce definitive CGT statements, and therefore for the government to require them to do so. And if that were done, CGT returns by individual taxpayers could become just a matter of taking the figures from each broker they use and adding them up - much as they handle dividends at present. That would be likely to reduce the costs significantly, both collection costs and political costs. Another example of a fundamental revision that might be attractive to the Chancellor is finding some way to tax all gains, whether realised or not (though the attractiveness of that might not be all that high at present, given recent losses...). But both of these fundamental revisions have a whole mass of practical detail to be designed - for example, how are transfers from one broker to another handled? how are certificated holdings handled? what happens if someone has big unrealised gains on shares that for some reason they cannot sell? and many others... So while fundamental reform of the CGT system might be a way for the Chancellor to effectively target CGT as a source of significant extra tax revenues, I'm pretty sure it's not an easy way for him to do so. Gengulphus
gengulphus: azalea, If I do not exceed my annual Capital Gains tax allowance, do I still have to declare to HMRC the number of shares I have bought and sold in the tax year? If HMRC require you to fill in a tax return, the instructions for doing so are in - that's the version that accompanies the paper tax return because I cannot give any equivalent link for the online tax return. The rules for the two types of tax return are essentially the same, though, so it does give you the answer about whether you should fill in the capital gains part of the online tax return: "7 Capital gains summary Fill in the ‘Capital gains summary’ pages and attach your computations if: • you sold or disposed of chargeable assets which were worth more than £48,000 • your chargeable gains before taking off any losses were more than £12,000 • you want to claim an allowable capital loss or make a capital gains claim or election for the year • you were not domiciled in the UK and are claiming to pay tax on your foreign gains on the remittance basis • you’re chargeable on the remittance basis and have remitted foreign chargeable gains of an earlier year • you sold or disposed of an interest in UK land or property and were not resident in the UK or you were a UK resident and overseas during the disposal • you submitted a Real Time Transaction return on the disposal of an asset and have not paid the full amount of Capital Gains Tax" The first three of those are the important ones for most people (the next three are only important for those with complications due to foreign residence, domicile, etc, and the last is something I've never come across). Together, they mean that in order to avoid having to fill in the Capital Gains part of the tax return, the total proceeds of your sales must be at most four times the CGT allowance and the total gains of your profitable sales (i.e. without offsetting the losses of your loss-making sales) must be at most the CGT allowance. For the first of those, the proceeds of a sale are the number of shares sold times the price obtained per share, without deducting broker commission or any other incidental costs - so a bit more than the final amount credited to your account for the sale. So you can be required to fill in the Capital Gains part of a tax return even though you don't have any CGT to pay, and since filling it in also requires you to submit your CGT computations, yes, you can be required to give numbers of shares sold along with other details of the sales, as well as similar details of the purchases of those shares (which could be in either the same tax year or in previous tax years, and can even be in the following tax year in some cases where the '30 day rule' is involved). There are basically three situations in which you have no CGT to pay but have to fill in the Capital Gains part of a tax return, or want to: A) Your total proceeds from sales for a tax year exceed four times the CGT allowance but your total gains (without offsetting losses) from the profitable sales are under the CGT allowance. B) Your total gains (without offsetting losses) from the sales for a tax year are over the CGT allowance, but you have enough losses (or other claims or elections) from those sales to be able to offset them to below the CGT allowance and so pay no CGT. C) Your losses from the sales for a tax year are greater than your gains from those sales, so you can offset all the gains and still have losses remaining. In situations A) and B), you have to fill in the Capital Gains part of the tax return if you're asked to submit one. In situation C), you're not obliged to fill it in, but you probably want to, because you can carry the net losses remaining after offsetting all the gains forward to future tax years, and they will eventually save you CGT unless you die before the opportunity for them to do so arises. (I should add that the rules for using losses brought forward from earlier tax years are a bit more generous than those for losses from sales in the same tax year: they don't have to be used offsetting gains that are already under the CGT allowance.) That leaves the case that HMRC haven't required you to submit a tax return. In that case, you're not legally required to submit one immediately, but you do have to check whether you have Income Tax and/or CGT to pay for the tax year, and if so, to notify HMRC of that situation ( ). HMRC are able to react to such a notification in various ways, but one reasonably likely one is that they'll require you to submit a tax return. In situation A), you don't have CGT to pay, so unless you have Income Tax to pay, AFAIAA you're not obliged to do anything if HMRC don't require you to submit a tax return. Situation B) is trickier. The issue is that you need to offset losses in order to have no CGT to pay, but you have to 'claim' a loss by telling HMRC about it to be able to use it to offset gains. So one way or another you need to tell HMRC the details of the losses, and it's at least reasonably likely that that will eventually lead to HMRC requiring you to submit a tax return. Situation C) is again a case of wanting to tell HMRC about the situation in order to 'claim' the losses concerned. There's a time limit on doing so: a loss that hasn't been 'claimed' by 4 years after the end of the tax year in which the sale happened can no longer be 'claimed'. So there's no immediate need to inform HMRC of the details, but there is a need to do so eventually (note that once 'claimed', there's no deadline for actually using the loss to offset gains, other than your death). Gengulphus
gengulphus: jeffian, I have just had a rather unpleasant shock, although this may come as no surprise to the thread experts. My wife held shares in a family company from way before 1982. That company was taken over in 1998 for shares and cash and the acquiring company has itself now been taken over in a cash-only bid. We had constructed a spreadsheet in 1998 to establish the base cost of the shares, starting with the known March 1982 value and adjusting for various transactions - additions, disposals, Rights issues and so on - including, of course, indexation. I am aware that indexation was frozen at 1998 and removed in 2008 but, having had the calculations back from my accountant, I wasn't aware that the indexation element of the 1998 cost was actually withdrawn and the base cost for CGT purposes goes back to the cost of the original holding. This smacks of retrospective taxation, surely? This change took effect in April 2008, as part of a package of CGT simplifications that came into effect then. Basically, that package almost entirely (*) got rid of indexation and taper relief, and reduced the CGT rates from the individual's marginal Income Tax rate to the current 10% up to one's unused basic-rate Income Tax band, 20% above that (a few years later, an extra 8% was added to both of those rates if the asset is residential property, and that remains the case today). So basically, the simplifications increased gains by removing the inflation/long-holding-period increments to base cost provided by indexation and taper relief, but reduced the rates at which the gains were taxed. IIRC, the government of the time justified this with the argument that overall, the increase and the decrease roughly balanced out, so that there was little overall effect on CGT raised, and so they weren't retrospectively raising more tax... But as far as individuals are concerned, yes, those changes in 2008 acted retrospectively, and the effects were definitely not guaranteed to cancel out: typically, someone who made massive gains over a period of less than three years benefited greatly from the rate cuts and wouldn't anything to lose from the abolition of indexation and taper relief (unless they could count the asset as a 'business asset'). Whereas someone who made modest, roughly inflation-equalling gains over many years might well have had gains before 1998 cancelled out by indexation and gains after 1998 reduced to below the CGT allowance, for no CGT to pay before the changes, and have found themselves liable to CGT on a gain that exceeded the CGT allowance after it... (It does incidentally seem particularly perverse that a Labour government made tax changes that benefited speculators who got rich quick and penalised steady long-term investors!) Anyway, people did make a bit of a fuss about the retrospective-taxation aspect of the changes back then in 2007-8 when they were proposed and enacted, but they didn't get anywhere. So I'm pretty certain there's no mileage in pursuing that angle now. And as far as the shock you've received is concerned, you might be able to reduce it by looking at what your CGT bill would have been if you did still have the indexation to reduce the gains up to 1998, but had to pay CGT at your marginal Income Tax rate rather than at the 10%/20% rates. No guarantees, though: as I indicate above, that exercise produces widely varying results for different individuals. (*) There is a case in which indexation can still affect calculations of capital gains and losses - IIRC it's when an asset was transferred between spouses before the simplifications came into effect: the indexation got 'frozen' into the transferee spouse's base cost at the time of the transfer, and that doesn't get retrospectively reversed. (But if this situation does apply to anyone, just take it as an indication that you need to check the exact rules, because I am not certain I remember the treatment accurately!) Gengulphus
gengulphus: Erogenous Jones, I'm sorry, but I think I have to largely pass on your question, because discretionary trusts and their taxation go well beyond my knowledge and experience. About all I can say is that if the rules for capital losses are the same as they are for individuals (which seems reasonably likely to me, but it's not something I know for a fact), then: * Gains and losses only arise (or are 'realised' in taxspeak) for CGT purposes if and when the assets are disposed of (usually by sale). So the trustees are to a large extent in control of which gains and losses arise for CGT purposes - they can prevent excessive gains or unneeded losses from arising by choosing not to sell, or cause losses needed to offset excessive gains (or enough gains to use the CGT allowance) to arise by choosing to sell. There are of course other forms of disposal that the trustees don't have a choice about, such as having a shareholding taken over or having made a fixed-term investment that matures, so they won't necessarily be able to totally control which gains and losses arise for CGT purposes - but they will generally have quite a lot of control. * When considering selling for the CGT effects, do pay attention to the old maxim that one shouldn't let the tax tail wag the investment dog - if there's a clear investment case for selling, do sell, and if there's a clear investment case for holding, don't sell, in both cases even if that means that the trust pays more CGT. But if the investment case is unclear, using the CGT effects as a tiebreaker between selling and not selling can be a reasonable idea. * Also watch out about trading costs: at 1%ish, they may seem small compared with 20% CGT, but they're a percentage of the total capital and the CGT is a percentage of the gain or loss - so if e.g. an investment is standing at a 5% loss, selling to save CGT by offsetting the loss is likely to cost about as much as it saves... * Once a loss has arisen by the asset being disposed of, one needs to tell HMRC about it (known as 'claiming' the loss) within 4 years after the end of the tax year in which it arose if one is ever to use it to offset gains. It also has to be used to offset gains that arose in the same tax year to the extent that there are such gains, even if those gains fall within the CGT allowance. Losses that arise in a tax year and are in excess of gains that arose in the same tax year can be carried forward to be used in later tax years, provided HMRC are told about them within the 4-year time limit. Note that once HMRC have been told about such a loss, it gets carried forward until it's needed because gains exceed the CGT allowance (unlike same-year losses, brought-forward losses do not have to be offset against gains below the CGT allowance), with no time limit on how long it might take. As some examples: A) Suppose that the trust realised a loss of £1,000 and no gains in the 2015/2016 tax year, and that the trust hasn't realised gains in excess of the CGT allowance since then. That loss can be carried forward through all of those tax years and will continue to be available into the future, provided HMRC are told about it (with details - i.e. what was sold, when, how much it was sold for and how much it had cost, etc) by the deadline, which is April 5th this year (four years after the end of the 2015/2016 tax year). B) Suppose that the trust realised a loss of £1,000 and a gain of £500 in the 2015/2016 tax year, and that the trust hasn't realised gains in excess of the CGT allowance since then. The first £500 of that loss has to be offset against the gain, but the remaining £500 can be carried forward through all of those tax years and will continue to be available into the future, provided HMRC are told about it (with details - i.e. what was sold, when, how much it was sold for and how much it had cost, similar details of the gain it was partially offset against, etc) by the same deadline. C) Suppose that the trust realised a loss of £1,000 and a gain of £1,500 in the 2015/2016 tax year, and that the trust hasn't realised gains in excess of the CGT allowance since then. That loss has to be offset entirely against the gain and none of it can be carried forward, and (AFAIAA) the difference between having £1,500 net gains and £500 net gains in the 2015/2016 tax year makes no difference to the fact that no CGT was payable for that tax year. So while the trustees could provide details to 'claim' the loss, there would be no point in doing so (and if the trust tax return is like the individual one, the question it asks is whether one wants to claim losses, so one can truthfully answer it "No" in such circumstances). I should end this reply (which seems to have grown longer than I anticipated!) by again stressing the fact that it's based on my knowledge of CGT as it applies to individuals, and is only relevant to CGT as it applies to trusts to the extent that the rules are the same. Whether they are the same is something I'll have to leave to you or others to determine. Gengulphus
gengulphus: eeza, My understanding is that CGT totally ignores CGT-exempt assets, so I think your total sales should only count the CGT-chargeable gold coins. I don't know exactly what "registered for Self Assessment" means or how long such registration lasts for, but my understanding of your obligations is based on It is that: * if HMRC ask you to fill in and submit a tax return for a tax year, you're obliged to do so and to follow its instructions in doing so - those instructions include having to fill in the capital gains part if the total for which you have sold (non-CGT-exempt, I believe) assets is over four times the allowance; * if HMRC don't ask you to fill in and submit a tax return for a tax year, you're obliged to work out whether you have Income Tax to pay in excess of what has already been deducted at source, and whether you have CGT to pay, and to notify HMRC if you have either (and I would expect HMRC to often respond to receiving such a notification by asking the taxpayer to fill in and submit a tax return, changing it into the first situation). As far as I am aware, this obligation does not involve a check on the value of the assets you have disposed of, only on the gains you have made (*). So on the assumption that HMRC haven't asked you to fill in and submit a tax return, it doesn't sound to me as though you need to do anything about CGT. And even if they have asked you to fill in and submit a tax return, or if they do so in the future, it doesn't sound to me as though you need to say anything about CGT in it. Just to be clear, though, I'm not a tax professional or expert - I'm an informed layman on CGT with most of my experience of CGT being for shares. I have no experience of CGT on coins, etc. So I am a bit out of my depth here, and my understanding is based only on general principles - it could easily be wrong if (for example) there's a special rule somewhere that I haven't encountered... (*) Note that if your overall gains are made up of a mixture of individual gains and losses, you can only offset the losses against the gains if you have 'claimed' the losses - i.e. told HMRC about them, with details. This could just conceivably be an issue for your chargeable sales - e.g. if you bought two coins for £2.5k and £17k, and sold them for £15k and £5k respectively, you would have sold for £20k and made an overall gain of £500, but it would be made up of an individual gain of £12.5k and an individual loss of £12k, and you would have to let HMRC know about at least one of the loss (to 'claim' it) and the gain (if you left the loss 'unclaimed'). I don't think that sort of situation is at all likely with gold coins, as in your case, but it can easily happen with other types of asset such as shares - so I'm writing this footnote mainly as a warning to other readers! Gengulphus
gengulphus: attrader, 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 ? I cannot really answer that question as it stands, because nobody is really classified as either a basic-rate taxpayer or a higher-rate taxpayer for CGT purposes. Rather, their taxable capital gains are taxed by CGT at either the lower rates of CGT (10%, or 18% for residential property) or the higher rates (20%, or 28% for residential property), as follows: 1) Work out the total of their taxable capital gains realised during the year. 2) Deduct allowable capital losses according to the rules for doing so: first deduct ones realised during the same year as far as possible (i.e. deduct all those losses if they're less than the gains, or an amount equal to the gains if they're greater). Then if the remaining gains are above the CGT allowance and there are losses brought forward from earlier years, deduct them until either they run out or the gains are reduced to the CGT allowance. (Any losses left undeducted at the end of this are carried forward to the next year.) 3) The remaining gains are the net taxable capital gains. They are taxed as follows: * First, an amount up to the CGT allowance is not taxed. * Second, if there are gains left after the first step (i.e. the net taxable capital gains were more than the CGT allowance), an amount up to the amount of the Income Tax basic-rate band that was not used for income in the Income Tax calculation is taxed at the lower rates. * Finally, if there are still gains left after the first two steps, they are taxed at the higher rates. So the simple case (which I would guess doesn't apply to you) is that if you're a higher-rate taxpayer (or above) as seen by Income Tax, i.e. if your Income Tax calculation takes you into higher-rate tax, it will have used your entire basic-rate band, there will be nothing left for the second step to use, and so none of your net taxable capital gains will be taxed at the lower rates. I.e. up to the CGT allowance will be untaxed, and anything over that is taxed at the higher rates. But if you're a basic-rate taxpayer as seen by Income Tax, i.e. if your Income Tax calculation takes you into basic-rate tax but not into higher-rate tax, you probably didn't use all of your basic-rate band in that calculation (not quite certainly because your taxable income might be exactly equal to the higher-rate threshold, taking you all the way through the basic-rate band but not quite into higher-rate tax). Up to the CGT allowance of net taxable capital gains is untaxed and up to your amount of unused basic-rate band is taxed at the lower rates, and anything not covered by those is taxed at the higher rates. Or if you're a non-taxpayer as seen by Income Tax, i.e. if your Income Tax calculation has all of your taxable income covered by your personal allowance and any other proper Income Tax allowances you happen to have (though see below about some 'allowances' introduced in recent years) and so doesn't take you into basic-rate tax, the same applies except that all of your basic-rate band is available, not just some of it. Note that unused allowances do not count as unused basic-rate band. In particular, unused Income Tax personal allowance is completely wasted and doesn't affect the CGT calculation, just as unused CGT allowance is completely wasted and does not affect the Income Tax calculation. So basically, it's the gains that are classified as being covered by the CGT allowance, taxed at the lower rates or taxed at the higher rates, and you could well end up having some taxed at each rate. So asking how you are classified is somewhat off-target... (*) A couple of other things to say: first, the Income Tax calculation does of course look at all your taxable income - salary, interest and dividends (unless received in an ISA or other tax shelter), pensions, etc. So the amount of salaried income you receive is not enough on its own to determine how much basic-rate band your Income Tax calculation leaves unused - and the dividends you receive do count towards taxable income. "Dividend tax" is not a different thing from Income Tax - it is Income Tax, just paid at a lower rate than for most taxable income. And secondly, the so-called 'dividend allowance' is not what I called a "proper Income Tax allowance" above, in that it doesn't prevent the dividend income it covers being counted against the tax bands: it is just an especially low tax rate of 0% that applies to the dividend income it covers. I.e. 'dividend allowance' is a rather poor description of it, since it's applied in a rather different way to the personal allowance and that different way does affect how the basic-rate band is used. And other "allowances" introduced in fairly recent years may need careful looking at to see whether something similar applies to them... (*) Note that this is little different from the situation with Income Tax - higher-rate taxpayers generally have part of their income taxed at basic rate and the rest at higher rate. So it is customary to take "higher-rate taxpayer" to mean someone in that situation, and there is a convention that one describes a taxpayer according to the highest rate of Income Tax that they pay. One could have a similar convention with regard to CGT, so that one describes someone as a "higher-rate CGT payer", a "lower-rate CGT payer" or a "CGT nonpayer" according to whether they pay CGT at the higher rates (possibly accompanied by also paying it at the lower rates), and if not, whether they pay it at the lower rates. But just as what rate of Income Tax taxpayer one is normally regarded as is an output from the Income Tax calculation, not an input to it, what rate of CGT taxpayer one is by that definition is an output from the CGT calculation, not an input to it. One needs to know all the inputs to the CGT calculation to determine it, not just the facts you give! Gengulphus
gengulphus: 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
Capital Gearing share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
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:20210121 06:24:09