Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Hi Russky - in short the government rules around permissible stocks dictate they must be listed on a 'recognised stock exchange'. This list can be found on the HMRC website... it does include US stock markets.
That said, your providers may not permit the holdings due to an increased level of admin that comes under the FATCA US legislations.
BTW - I do this for a living and so am confident in my reply... That said, this is not personal advice to follow! :)
Speaking as a financial planner (Tax and Investments), I have clients whom we've mitigated CGT liabilities in £100s of £1000s.
I would urge you to seek advice and have a strategy put together for you. It will cost, but if it's less than your tax liability surely it's worth it :)
Not quite what I meant....
Investment companies and trading companies - by definition with HMRC have certain taxation differences, such as BPR qualifying, Entrepreneurs relief another... there could be something underlying that would help the company save some tax somewhere along the line.
Just a thought... but would there be an advantage to waiting for the company trading status to be changed to 'operating' from 'investment' status before the tankers are allowed to flow through with oil?? May or may not make a difference in some accountancy manner.
As I said, just a thought... all views are welcome.
Thanks Gweilo & Lucro - been in a few meetings this afternoon, so I didn't have a chance to respond any earlier. Sorry to bite chaps of the board, but spreading inaccuracies on an educational level is just plain wrong. In financial services our reputation has suffered over many many years with scandal upon scandal. Sometimes it's just nice to share the great, inclusive experience I offer my clients. Good luck all - just remember wealth can come in many forms, not just financial!
Additionally, Whatcheil - name your broker on here, so we can advise their clients to complain if your broker does allocate unfairly as you claim they've told you they will....
As someone who worked in the city for a brokerage for 8 years (applying corporate actions to client accounts). I can with 100% certainty say that Whatcheil is spouting utter B*llocks! I rarely post, but it infuriates me when people believe they know best and try to gloat over others with minimal experience in this regard. The RNS states the allocation %, NOT the brokerage - any client account held in nominee (ie. not in your own name) which opts for their allocation (or increased allocation) will receive the SAME pro-rata as any other. Any broker who allocates against this is liable to complaint action from ANY client who is adversely affected by the brokerage deciding to allocate in their own way. It would be enforceable under the FCAs Treating Customers Fairly rules (TCF) - resulting in compensation to the disadvantaged client. Preferential treatment of accounts may work when MMs work orders in the market - but NOT in allocated corporate actions. Bonkers, utter bonkers!!