Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Company ownership from overseas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RodC
    replied
    Yep it's 25% I've been told that by 2 different law firms.

    I should have some references to it somewhere, I'll try to find them.

    regards,

    Rod.

    Leave a comment:


  • donna
    replied
    Umm - by our Auckland Lawyers.

    Cheers,

    Donna

    Leave a comment:


  • jas
    replied
    DonnaK

    Can I ask where you got that 25% figure? I was told it was 50%....

    Jas

    Leave a comment:


  • Souljah
    replied
    Hi people

    I have a number of clients based offshore who have trusts and LAQCs in NZ. I am able to give to the details of a very good solicitor based in Queensyoen who deals with this all the time.

    PM me if you want her details.

    Leave a comment:


  • RodC
    replied
    Hi Motivstorm,

    I used Fortune Manning as well. I've found them to be excellent.

    regards,

    Rod.

    Leave a comment:


  • donna
    replied
    Hi Motivstorm,

    On this site there is a list of Professionals so you could have a look at that for a lawyer. I personally have a couple I use.

    Fortune Manning Law Partnership - Auckland - I use most frequently and their details are on this site. They have also contributed articles on Trusts on this site too.

    Hope this helps.

    Regards,

    Donna

    Leave a comment:


  • Motivstorm
    replied
    hi RodC,

    could you please tell me which lawyer do you use and how are their services? How much does it cost to engage a lawyer in NZ? I'm in Melbourne, but thinking of starting a company ( with the solicitor as owining 100% share ) and me the appointor n director like what u've outlined.. to start my IP investments in NZ

    Leave a comment:


  • RodC
    replied
    That's right Donna, the pot of $$$ doesn't belong to the company it belongs to the trust. The trustee distributes the income to the beneficiaries who then pay tax on their share. The trust is liable for tax on any undistributed income.

    Rod.

    Leave a comment:


  • donna
    replied
    Thanks Rod.

    I thought with an accumulation of rental income each year there would be a pot of $$ growing in the company of which some may be distributed as dividends. I understand the appointer status for the Trust and I suppose $$ in the co would be distributed to the beneficiaries b4 tax time to reduce the amount of tax paid by the company?

    Still need to learn more about the difference between distributing income to 'employees' in the company structure and making distributions to 'beneficiaries' of the trust etc.

    Cheers,

    Donna

    Leave a comment:


  • RodC
    replied
    Hi Donna,

    The law firm can't collect any dividends because there aren't any. The only function of the company is to act as trustee of the trust. Even if there were dividends, the director of the company (myself) decides the dividend distribution policy.

    If somehow the shareholders "rebelled" and sacked me as director of the trustee company, I would still have the power (as settlor/appointer of the trust) to appoint a different trustee.

    Rod.

    Leave a comment:


  • donna
    replied
    Umm - I'm doing a Dip Fin. Svs (conveyancing) at the moment and the common law cases we're looking at relating to fraudulent activity by Professionals eg Lawyers are scary to say the least!

    I suppose that's what puts me off the 100% shareholding held by the Law Firm. What stops them from from collecitng dividends? I guess I am missing an important rule that prevents this situation from happening. Is it something to do with the shareholder needing to be a Director to aurthorise the release of dividends?

    What's your thoughts?

    Cheers

    Donna

    Leave a comment:


  • RodC
    replied
    Hi beama,

    That would work as well, but as I mentioned before often your solicitor will hold the shares to achieve the same result.

    Rod

    Leave a comment:


  • beama
    replied
    under 25%

    Do you have a contact in NZ who can be majority shareholder, perhaps family members? And you could own under 25% ie. No Audit

    Beama

    Leave a comment:


  • RodC
    replied
    Hi Donna,

    Sorry I didn't explain myself very well.
    The company is NZ owned by my solicitors trustee company (they hold 100% of the shares).
    The director of the company is myself.
    The company is the trustee of my family trust.

    This way the audit requirement doesn't apply as the company is NZ owned.

    Rod.

    Leave a comment:


  • donna
    replied
    Not sure I understand that Rod....

    I have been told that if there is more than 25% shareholding by non-residents - the company is a 'foreign company' - and this has been confirmed by our Trust lawyers.

    Would love to get around this if its possible - tell more.

    Cheers,

    Donna

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X