Director banned for poor record keeping
A company director has been disqualified from being involved in the management of any company for eleven years. What went on and why should directors take notice of the circumstances?

The High Court issued a disqualification order lasting eleven years to the sole director of Magnetic Push Ltd. The company was purportedly operating as a payroll services company, and entered voluntary liquidation within a year of being formed. However, the liquidator found the director completely unco-operative when requesting the company’s statutory records. This was reported to the Insolvency Service, which investigated and found that the company was acting as an umbrella company in part of a tax avoidance scheme.
This is obviously an extreme case, but there are wider implications for company owners. It should serve as a reminder that companies are subject to strict conditions when it comes to the records that must be kept, both in respect of the company itself and its financial and accounting information. Failure to keep accounting records can lead to a £3,000 fine and/or disqualification from acting as a director. In short, good record keeping should be a priority for any company director. The information provided here is a good reference point for what you need to be keeping.
Related Topics
-
Was a company buyback of EIS shares tax avoidance?
Two taxpayers used the “purchase of own shares” procedure to extract gains they’d made from enterprise investment scheme (EIS) shares. HMRC said this was unfair tax avoidance, the taxpayers disagreed. What did the Upper Tribunal decide?
-
HMRC’s new compliance check service
HMRC has published a collection of videos and notes to help if you’re picked for a compliance check. Is HMRC’s new service worth a look or is it just official propaganda?
-
Income sharing trouble for separated couple
After a couple separated one spouse received income from letting the property she jointly owned with her estranged spouse. HMRC taxed all the income on her. Was it right to do so or should her spouse have been taxed on half the income?