.png)
.png)
A reader has written to comment on a recent Readers' Forum item in which reference was made to the Revenue becoming stricter in the approval of the use of Extra-statutory Concession C16. The assurances required were previously given by the firm acting for the clients, but it is now a requirement that the company secretary's and all of the shareholders' signatures should be obtained to the document.
A reader has written to comment on a recent Readers' Forum item in which reference was made to the Revenue becoming stricter in the approval of the use of Extra-statutory Concession C16. The assurances required were previously given by the firm acting for the clients, but it is now a requirement that the company secretary's and all of the shareholders' signatures should be obtained to the document.
The reader comments that this is also the case at his local district. The local office is also insisting that all tax be paid by the company before the company is struck off, despite the agreement given both by the company and its shareholders to pay any corporation tax, etc. as part of the concessionary treatment agreed with the Revenue. If the tax is not paid, then the Revenue will object to the striking off.
The agreement by the shareholders to pay the company's corporation tax under the concession appears to be otiose if the Revenue is in any event expecting to insist on the company settling its tax. This may lead to the Revenue receiving the tax well before the due date. The reader understands from a local Inspector that any credit interest due on the early payment will be suppressed. The Revenue pockets the interest! The only alternative is to keep the company in existence until the due date, pay on time and then dissolve the company. The Inspector's insistence on requiring 'confirmation of payment of all taxes' apparently came about from advice from head office and was on the basis that the assurances given by the shareholders under Concession C16 were not enforceable in law.
