rmorris

G4M have bought GAK stock / website / data from the administrators. Not planning to trade under the GAK brand identity.

Studiospares went into liquidation. Gear4Music have subsequently picked up the brand, IP , assets etc. Offering a range of products from Studio spares own / proprietary brands. Maybe more to follow. But at present a far cry from the previous 'full range" offering of music / studio kit. Seems they picked it up for around £150k. Nearest outfit to the old Studiospares is Canford Audio. But they operate only on a B2B basis.

I see what you did there 🤣 Naughty 😳

Yes. But beyond our bass centric world - GAK went beyond the bass / guitar / amp area. More full range with drums / studio / keys etc. Nearest thing now for UK may be Gear4Music. Thomann in Germany obvs. Not a new thing though - on the studio side anyone remember Thatched Cottage Audio ? And more recently the demise of Studiospares?

Back to GAK - just been past. Stock shifted and Shop to Let signs up.

The context seemed clear to me but since that comment was going against my recognition of the risk aspect then you'd need to ask the poster about what exactly was meant. As for "encompassing all of the factors..." - how would you propose to approach that ? (outside of the tax regime )

Very much so. Malfeasance is another level as I see it. What I more often see is a business that is maybe going along okay but not stellar being acquired with the aim of pushing / expanding it hugely. It's risky, it fails. Employees lose their jobs and the future opportunities along with them. The company owners can afford the loss and that loss is minimised by use of company structures and (legal) accounting practices. Yes. Though a not insignificant number of "bad apples' eh "Phoenix companies". Maybe I've spent too long in / around small scale businesses where the "bosses" have been more interested in their next car 🤔 That's interesting. I've also found HMRC okay (fingers crossed as I'm waiting to hear back from them on something atm) But I know someone where it has been awful trying to get something personal resolved. I believe there has been a significant degree of loss of experienced senior staff over time. Pay restraint and high offers from financial businesses drawing them away. Although many then not happy with the pressure piled on them.

No. Whilst there may be numerous risks in business, the relevant risk wrt taxation status (which is the area under discussion here wrt difference in tax / NI rates PAYE vs Dividend Income) IS the investment risk and whether it justified being taxed at a different rate. In many cases it's not a problem tbh but it can be subject to abuse.

The benefits thing is tired tbh. Of course owners / self employed don't get company paid benefits as they would simply be paying themselves. There is an argument around state paid benefits, esp SSP but it's fairly marginal. Holiday / Sickness Pay considerations etc need to be rolled into renumeration taken. It's why you pay a trade a multiple of the "?wage" itself. Paid Directors are subject to PAYE and any contractual terms between them and the limited company. Of course, depending on the circumstances, this may be a zero sum gain. Where it gets "interesting" is with multiple directors who are also shareholders and where there is disagreement on finance / policy / direction etc. Cause of many a company break up and bad feeling. Like being in a band 🤣 As for GAK specifically - I'd say - picked up by a notorious businessman for a punt. Aim to push further into online. Focus on high margin items judging from emails. When all incomes are under increasing cost pressure. Large physical shop in high retail value area. High staff costs. Accountants inform them it was no longer a viable operation so immediate lock up and nonsensical "Refurbishment" notice slapped on a door ?

The risk taking argument really only applies to what in realistic terms can be judged to be real investment risk. Where it is being used as a vehicle to subsidise unrealistically low PAYE income then, yes, it's avoidance ( unless HMRC / Courts find it to be evasion).

Depends on the specific circumstances. There is an element of encouraging risk taking. But it can be abused in terms of trading realistic salary income for dividend income to artificially reduce income tax. It can, of course, backfire. Remember the outcry when people who paid themselves largely through dividends were not eligible for furlough support etc during COVID-19 restrictions.

There will be creditors. To withdraw assets / reserves from a company in such circumstances would be illegal.

In general yes. But there is no statutory requirement for a director to be a shareholder or vice-versa. Although it might be a requirement set by the company itself. I'm very aware that "dodgy accounting" is a thing. But legally dividends must be paid only from available profits which limits scope. OTOH there are Directors Loans as a financial vehicle...

Not understanding that remark. Dividends are paid to shareholders in a company. Who may, or may not be, Directors (as in Officers of the Company).

Get what you are saying. But that retail model seems to not be working out well atm ? wrt GAK specifically I sensed a significant bias towards pushing the expensive kit. In the current general economic climate and the difficulties of semi/pro musicians earning significant money then I can't say I'm shocked that the shutters have gone up.