The sale of Queen Anne's Gate...
Moderator: Moderators
-
spiderlegs
- 3rd Former
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:16 am
-
Tim
- LE (Little Erasmus)
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:27 am
- Real Name: Tim Benjamin
- Location: London UK
- Contact:
That company information (for HEDGEMANOR) is no longer available at Companies House. Perhaps they purge old companies every now and then? Seems unlikely, and the information was presumably there when the previous post was made in March.
There is information (including downloadable accounts... these are often vague though) on http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/a8815 ... ompdetails Safeland Properties Ltd.
Just wondering though, to play devil's advocate for a minute... I have seen a few similar dodgy-looking deals whilst I was working for a venture capital firm. They look dodgy, but they are not (technically / legally, anyway). The general idea is to avoid (evade? surely not) tax. Could it be the case that the Hedgemanor company was owned by the CH fund / trust / whatever structure it is, and the initial sale was to Hedgemanor because (maybe) Hedgemanor had managed to run up a large trading loss? This would allow the profits on the sale to be offset against the loss, and minimal tax paid.
I'm not an expert, but this would only be of much use if Hedgemanor had filed accounts. You might be able to file accounts with the Inland Revenue and then dissolve (or sell) the company before the Companies House deadline. That would give you the same situation as we seem to have here. It may be that Hedgemanor was bought off the shelf, ran up a "loss", then made this profit by selling on the property to Safeland, and then the company somehow dissolved to the benefit of the CH trust / fund.
This could explain why answers have not been forthcoming, as you wouldn't want the Revenue investigating such a deal as they've been known to slap on tax retrospectively, and add interest, if they don't like what they find. In particular I believe they've started applying today's rules to some of yesterday's cases, which seems unfair to me.
The rules in the 90s were not so strict as they are now, with the FSA, but IIRC there were a few interesting dealings going on in those years (Polly Peck, Maxwell, BCCI anyone?)
On the other hand...
I have also seen a few deals where directors or trustees of assets have been "relieved" of those assets for what the directors/trustees believed to be a good sum, only to find out later that they could have got a lot more if they'd done or realised X Y and Z. These sort of people are advised by reputable firms but often just fall for it; it's usually a property deal of some sort. I think even the Church of England might have fallen victim to this sort of sharp practice!
Er, just in case, everything I've said above is almost certainly completely false and I disclaim everything, it's just an opinion, and so forth! Oh brave Sir Robin...
There is information (including downloadable accounts... these are often vague though) on http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/a8815 ... ompdetails Safeland Properties Ltd.
Just wondering though, to play devil's advocate for a minute... I have seen a few similar dodgy-looking deals whilst I was working for a venture capital firm. They look dodgy, but they are not (technically / legally, anyway). The general idea is to avoid (evade? surely not) tax. Could it be the case that the Hedgemanor company was owned by the CH fund / trust / whatever structure it is, and the initial sale was to Hedgemanor because (maybe) Hedgemanor had managed to run up a large trading loss? This would allow the profits on the sale to be offset against the loss, and minimal tax paid.
I'm not an expert, but this would only be of much use if Hedgemanor had filed accounts. You might be able to file accounts with the Inland Revenue and then dissolve (or sell) the company before the Companies House deadline. That would give you the same situation as we seem to have here. It may be that Hedgemanor was bought off the shelf, ran up a "loss", then made this profit by selling on the property to Safeland, and then the company somehow dissolved to the benefit of the CH trust / fund.
This could explain why answers have not been forthcoming, as you wouldn't want the Revenue investigating such a deal as they've been known to slap on tax retrospectively, and add interest, if they don't like what they find. In particular I believe they've started applying today's rules to some of yesterday's cases, which seems unfair to me.
The rules in the 90s were not so strict as they are now, with the FSA, but IIRC there were a few interesting dealings going on in those years (Polly Peck, Maxwell, BCCI anyone?)
On the other hand...
I have also seen a few deals where directors or trustees of assets have been "relieved" of those assets for what the directors/trustees believed to be a good sum, only to find out later that they could have got a lot more if they'd done or realised X Y and Z. These sort of people are advised by reputable firms but often just fall for it; it's usually a property deal of some sort. I think even the Church of England might have fallen victim to this sort of sharp practice!
Er, just in case, everything I've said above is almost certainly completely false and I disclaim everything, it's just an opinion, and so forth! Oh brave Sir Robin...
Tim Benjamin
PeB: 87-90
PeA: 90-91
MidB: 91-93
http://www.timbenjamin.com
Clements Theory: http://www.clementstheory.com - E-learn music theory!
Study guides and thousands of practice questions for Associated Board Grade 5 Theory
PeB: 87-90
PeA: 90-91
MidB: 91-93
http://www.timbenjamin.com
Clements Theory: http://www.clementstheory.com - E-learn music theory!
Study guides and thousands of practice questions for Associated Board Grade 5 Theory
-
Mid A 15
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 3172
- Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 1:38 pm
- Real Name: Claude Rains
- Location: The Patio Of England (Kent)
Tim,
Look under DISSOLVED companies on the Companes House website. Hedgemanor Limited appears there. It appears that a list of members was filed on 23/5/97. For £1 it is possible to obtain a copy of that list.
Looking at the Trustees of the Charity, disclosed on another thread, at least one has professional contacts with property companies and businesses.
This could be mere coincidence. I am in no position to comment one way or the other.
However it may be of interest to examine the lists of members and directors from each company up the chain involved with these transactions.
It should be considered that the Queen Anne Gate property could have been in disrepair and considerably improved, once purchased, by Hedgemanor Ltd or Safeland Properties Limited.
An improved or repaired property would obviously sell for more than an unimproved property. It may also be that the market was buoyant in that area at that time which would also explain some of the gain(s).
Look under DISSOLVED companies on the Companes House website. Hedgemanor Limited appears there. It appears that a list of members was filed on 23/5/97. For £1 it is possible to obtain a copy of that list.
Looking at the Trustees of the Charity, disclosed on another thread, at least one has professional contacts with property companies and businesses.
This could be mere coincidence. I am in no position to comment one way or the other.
However it may be of interest to examine the lists of members and directors from each company up the chain involved with these transactions.
It should be considered that the Queen Anne Gate property could have been in disrepair and considerably improved, once purchased, by Hedgemanor Ltd or Safeland Properties Limited.
An improved or repaired property would obviously sell for more than an unimproved property. It may also be that the market was buoyant in that area at that time which would also explain some of the gain(s).
Ma A, Mid A 65 -72