Re: Fund accounts to March 2014

Thetruth Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:32 pm

I noticed Chirpy morph to Resistor. Shocked

I have tried and failed to paste this...look at page two of the accounts.

Note that the Directors of the company state that the company paid expenses of witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial against Dr Amaral whose book caused vast damage to the search in Portugal.

This vast damage does not chime with the findings of proof presented recently at the trial.

I wonder what Dr Amaral would make of this statement by the directors.

AndyB Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:35 pm

costello wrote:Where is AndyB's last post it just seems to have vanished?

I deleted it after I read chirpyinsect confirming that the Vat number isn't required. At the point I posted it Is thought it was chirpy that was claiming accountancy experience to justify his/her claims about-turn Vat number

Guest Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:38 pm

Oh FFS. I replied in error to a post that I thought was meant for me. Yet here you all are getting your knickers in a knot. I don't have to justify myself here and I am not going to. You can all continue this discussion without me. I'm done.

chirpyinsect Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:39 pm

All I did was reply to AndyB stating something I had thought to be true. My confusion came about because when I ran my own business back in the 80`s I was advised to have the VAT no on all paperwork. I have since corrected my statement with a link to the correct information.
There has been a simple misunderstanding as to who was replying to whom.

Thetruth Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:42 pm

AndyB wrote:
Thetruth wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Enid O'Dowds analysis of accounts March 2014: http://mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Scroll down a bit.

I was missing the nub in my post above.

My puzzle is this,

How does a limited company take a 400,000 pound donation?

Does that mean no vat invoice rendered to donor ? If it is book related, it is a payment for something.

I just don't get it.
I suspect it's just cash introduced as you would at company formation. E.g. Mortgage the house to buy equipment and the money goes to you but you need it in the company for the tax relief (if it isn't in the company the equipment will belong to you). This money hasn't be accounted for otherwise you'd never reconcile what's in the bank with the accounts so the accounting entry usually just reads "cash introduced". I suspect they've used "donation" in this case toothy and portray the fund as a charity rather than a business.

There's no VAT because there's nothing to add VAT to

Talking of mortgaging the house to give money to the business an evil but interesting thought occurs to me. Is it possible that the McCanns, mindful of their likely ruin over costs in the libel trial (and the still outstanding costs of the book banning attempt) have mortgaged their biggest asset to stop GA getting his hands on the equity. If they did this they would need to put it somewhere where it would be ring-fenced away and couldn't be got at by people trying to enforce payment. What better place then the fund

Is am still puzzled.

I was a director myself of a small limited company and the start up capital was defined by our accountant as a loan from the directors. We could repay ourselves once there was sufficient cash flow. I still do not see how a ltd company gets a donation.

Your mortgage idea is a valid one. They cannot gift their assets to the twins are they are plaintiffs too, but I think you can assume asset shedding has been looked at. Also check out the company of which Peter Mandleson is a director. It invoices for his services and has just paid him a loan, tax free, of 400k pounds. No payback period has to be defined. Nice work ...

Poe Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:42 pm

Châtelaine wrote:
AndyB wrote: [...]
Talking of mortgaging the house to give money to the business an evil but interesting thought occurs to me. Is it possible that the McCanns, mindful of their likely ruin over costs in the libel trial (and the still outstanding costs of the book banning attempt) have mortgaged their biggest asset to stop GA getting his hands on the equity. If they did this they would need to put it somewhere where it would be ring-fenced away and couldn't be got at by people trying to enforce payment. What better place then the fund
***
An interesting thought, indeed, AndyB
Same would count for income of the book IMO

ETA @ Poe
Yes, in the same line of thinking.

I'm just having a warm and fuzzy attack of schadenfreude at the thought that since the McCanns have squirrelled away their assets, in spite of all the disapproval Isabel Duarte had to endure from her friends and all the free work Carter Ruck have done quietly and behind the scenes they might not get paid Very Happy

costello Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:43 pm

Phew! Thanks AndyB I seriously thought I was losing it there.

Guest Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:45 pm

Châtelaine wrote:
AndyB wrote: [...]
Talking of mortgaging the house to give money to the business an evil but interesting thought occurs to me. Is it possible that the McCanns, mindful of their likely ruin over costs in the libel trial (and the still outstanding costs of the book banning attempt) have mortgaged their biggest asset to stop GA getting his hands on the equity. If they did this they would need to put it somewhere where it would be ring-fenced away and couldn't be got at by people trying to enforce payment. What better place then the fund
***
An interesting thought, indeed, AndyB
Same would count for income of the book IMO
ETA @ Poe
Yes, in the same line of thinking.

Just a comment off the top of my head as I haven't read all the details regarding the accounts, but it is not a Fund though is it, it's a Limited Company where goods are bought from a supplier and sold on through the website i.e. t-shirts, wristbands, luggage tags (making a profit for the McCanns), so wouldn't that be quite different to a "Fund" which is registered as a "charity", or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Thetruth Thu 29 Jan 2015, 3:54 pm

Well, you could well be barking.
But up the right tree !

It is in the end a ltd company that buys and sells stuff like rubber bands. And it helps 'the family'.

margaret Thu 29 Jan 2015, 4:18 pm

Tigger wrote:
Thetruth wrote:Is the company registered for Value Added Tax ?
With a turnover like that I would have thought it should be ?.

How is work carried out in authoring a book paid for by a donation?
Should not the company invoice for work done and then receive a payment?
Which includes vat or not ? Or is all book/ authoring work vat free in UK ?

Can anyone clarify ?
I think there was a post in the 2011 accounts which may be using part of your house as an office and iirc the query was that it could have been the book.
Wonder if the MMU is tax deductable as well.

Resistor wrote:Yes, it would be as it is a legitimate business expense.

Resistor, I think we're all getting confused with this vat thing....

The VAT can only be deducted and reclaimed on any items purchased if the company has a turnover of over £81,000 and is registered for vat.

So they can't reclaim any vat on items purchased if they're not registered for it.... Question is..... are they registered for it?

Tbh I can't see them turning over £81k on wristbands and holiday packs...

margaret Thu 29 Jan 2015, 4:26 pm

Poe wrote:

Theoretically, if Kate wanted to protect her money from lawyers fees could she do it by donating the cash to the fund with the restriction that it can only be used for the search and investigation? The lawyers can't claim that money from the fund because its usage is restricted and they can't claim it from Kate because she no longer has it. Then, at some point in the future when the fund is closed, could the outstanding restricted balance be returned to Kate because it hasn't been spent?

I think that's irrelevant Poe, if the limited company was set up from a crime it's assets will be seized under proceeds of crime.

Guest Thu 29 Jan 2015, 4:51 pm

That would probably include assets stashed away in off-shore accounts and no doubt adding to the amount of time this investigation is taking to resolve.

Sponsored content