Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Phillip Dearden

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

289 Excellent

About Phillip Dearden

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,517 profile views
  1. Co Act 2006 s157 allows for an arrangement to be binding on all shareholders if 75% have agreed (and Court approved) but I can't see this happening in secret with the other 25% being unaware.
  2. On 13th March the Board of Manx Telecom recommended that shareholders accept the deal. https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/LON:MANX/Manx-Telecom/rns/LSE20190313070005_13999832 That transaction appears to have completed on 9 May. https://www.manxtelecom.com/about/media/press-releases-2019/3480-manx-telecom-stronger-with-new-owners-says-ceo How could the shares be sold without the shareholders knowing?
  3. That is why the "Reserve" figures are not very meaningful. The Reserves are one side of the Balance Sheet and they are really just a historical record of how we got here. The other side of the Balance Sheet does include schools and roads, the accounts are correct but these are not money that can be used to pay bills. A Reserve figure of £10bn or £100bn would not be much use to pay bills if all the assets it represented were used tarmac and breakwaters. Those who care need to look at cash, near cash and cash flows. These numbers do look good for now but could get stressed as we move forwards.
  4. What does that figure mean? The Audited figures show that from 2009 to 2018 Total Funds and Reserves of the Govt. fell from £2.7bn to £421m (or from £2.2bn to -£437m if you exclude the NI Fund) Those figures are not cash and liquid assets. They are the bottom half of the Balance Sheet, to be compared with the P&L and Share Capital of a company. Nevertheless the reduction is indicative of a problem. At 31/3/18 the Govt had +500m of cash and a similar figure for Net Current Assets so they/we are a long way from a crisis but there is a long-term issue to be dealt with.
  5. Is a hotel retail and selling goods? These arrangements often involve a separate landlord, operating company, franchisor etc...If so, there may be rent which may be taxable but I am not sure the profits of a hotel trade are taxed as "large retail".
  6. I have tried to be helpful. I apologise if I have failed.
  7. Most will and if a minority were to consider acting otherwise they know they would encounter a grumpy regulator.
  8. I wish I knew who was who but I don't know that I know anyone...except John W.
  9. Why are so many misinterpreting what I say. Is it wilful or have I lost my powers of explanation? To be clear, I am not aware of anyone who has deliberately set up arrangements to avoid BO provisions. Most arrangements on the Island pre-date the 2012 (NO must be aware of BO) and 2017 (non-public register) provisions and so cannot have been set up with these provisions in mind. I guess arrangements may have either been tweaked or implemented since then in order to frustrate these provisions but why would you do so? The domestic tax provisions are unchanged, FATCA, CRS and AML ensure that tax exposures will be highlighted if not properly reported and a TSP deliberately assisting in frustrating a BO report would be endangering his future prosperity. All this to avoid an entry on a private register when access to BO info for appropriate authorities already exists. Seems to involve a lot of risk and complication for little gain. My main point in all the comments above is that in some cases it will not be easy to identify a BO. That is not because anyone has implemented an anti-BO strategy but because the economics of some arrangements are such that there is no clear BO. In Rushen Spy's example, the owner does not seem to have given up ownership. As Gladys said, we may be missing some key elements but if these are designed purely to frustrate BO reporting, any sensible TSP will think carefully about getting involved.
  10. Yes, but a more complete answer, also in English, would be; If you are prepared to give up the rights and privileges of being an owner, then you need not be reported as an owner.
  11. No. The example I gave where I said identifying a UBO was where a settlor had died and left assets for a wide class of family members. I have seen many such arrangements. In these cases identifying a UBO is not straightforward. I am not claiming all trusts are like this. It is no contradiction to point out that if Notail creates a trust he can benefit from and he is still alive then this is a different arrangement and will have a different result.
  12. I have answered this three times but lets try again. If the settlor is dead he can't be the UBO anymore. Notail is alive. Different circumstances.
  13. Where is the contradiction? Notail is alive and wants to circumvent the UBO rules. The trusts I saw were mostly created by settlors now deceased and were not designed with UBO rules in mind but identifying a single UBO would be tricky. Two totally different circumstances. They could be similar but Notail would need to not only give up his right to access the assets but also his life. Very few settlors will go this far just to frustrate a reporting requirement...but if you want to try selling it as a solution feel free. I am sensing some antagonism here. I should say that I believe these provisions will come in, they will need some deeming provisions which will make some of the results not very helpful and they will, once this is realised, be fine-tuned and become slightly more effective. I do not think much of what happens on the IOM relies on "non-disclosure" so that little extra tax will be produced but there will be costs and inefficiencies introduced so that the IOM will be a little bit less viable than it otherwise would be.
  • Create New...