• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Recent case highlights the importance of correctly declaring dividends

A recent case, Re BM Electrical Solutions Ltd, has found a director-shareholder liable to repay sums which were held to be director loans despite having been recorded as dividends in the company’s accounting software package.

Background

For tax saving reasons, the director-shareholder had agreed to a very low salary (net £11,702) on the basis that he could claim other monies as dividends.

After falling into financial difficulty, the company was wound up on 3 August 2015. Upon his appointment, the liquidator identified that transfers of approximately £220,000 had been made to the director-shareholder over a three and a half year period. The liquidator accepted that credit should be given to the director for his salary but claimed that the balance should be treated as loans from the company to the director, which should be repaid.

At trial, the director stated that a small proportion of the sums paid to him were his salary, whilst the rest of the payments were entered onto the accounting software package under a code for ‘dividends’. This was claimed to be a tax efficiency measure.

However, after the first year of trading, the director did not cause any further accounts to be prepared, meaning that the company only ever filed one set of accounts (for the period to 31 January 2012, filed on 11 August 2012).

Findings

Judge Lance Ashworth QC held that the sums paid to the director-shareholder were to be treated as director loans made with the expectation that there would be sufficient profits each year to pay them off. The reasons for this were two-fold.

For a dividend to become payable, it must be declared. As the director could not show that he had made such a declaration, he could not argue that the payments received should be treated as dividends.

Notwithstanding the above, a declaration (and subsequent payment) of dividends must be conducted in accordance with Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006. Under Part 23, a company may only pay dividends out of profits available for the purpose and those profits are to be determined by reference to profits, losses, assets and liabilities ‘as stated in the relevant accounts’ (s830 and s836). Those relevant accounts are the last annual accounts or interim accounts if the distribution would otherwise contravene Part 23. Given that no accounts had been drawn up since 2012, even if the payments were considered to be distributions, they would still be considered unlawful as the formalities in Part 23 CA 2006 had not been compiled with.

Accordingly, the director was required to repay the sums to the company (s847 CA 2006).

Takeaway Points

This case highlights the importance of correctly declaring shareholder dividends. Directors should ensure that dividends are formally and correctly declared in accordance with Part 23, otherwise there will be no liability on the company to pay it.

The judgement also provides a reminder of the risk to director-shareholders who agree to accept a nominal salary on the basis of being able to draw further funds as dividends.

The clarity given by this judgment will be welcomed by officeholders seeking to recover purported dividend payments made to director-shareholders in excess of their salary.

Our thinking

  • EG quotes Alison Goldthorp on WeWork's restructuring plans

    Alison Goldthorp

    In the Press

  • Enforcement of Judgments

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Healthcare Business International quotes Paul Arathoon on Babylon Health's new restructuring plan and issues for shareholders

    Paul Arathoon

    In the Press

  • Alison Goldthorp writes for Recovery Magazine on stakeholders responsibilities in property disposals

    Alison Goldthorp

    In the Press

  • Cryptocurrency recognised as property in landmark ruling

    Patrick Chan

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys strengthens its Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice with the arrival of Simon Le Wita

    Simon Le Wita

    News

  • LexisNexis features Patrick Gearon FCIArb in its UAE Managing Partner Report

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys announces further growth of its Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice with the arrival of two new Partners

    John Lewis

    News

  • Katie Bewick writes for Independent Community Pharmacist on ways to remove a company director

    Katie Bewick

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys features twice in The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases for 2023

    Stewart Hey

    News

  • The Telegraph quotes Roger Elford on the increase of company insolvencies in November

    Roger Elford

    In the Press

  • Roger Elford writes for EG on the UK restructuring regime

    Roger Elford

    In the Press

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - DIFC

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - Abu Dhabi

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Melania Constable writes for Property Week on restructuring in the property sector

    In the Press

  • Melania Constable and Jessica Williams write for Pharmacy Business on what the collapse of Testerworld means for community pharmacies

    In the Press

  • Administrators beware where more than 20 redundancies are planned

    Emily Chalkley

    Insights

  • Melania Constable and Georgina O'Sullivan write for P3 Pharmacy on the easing of Covid winding up restrictions

    In the Press

  • Dimitri Sonier and Denis Meyer write for Les Echos Solutions on the restructuring and reform of French insolvency law

    Dimitri A. Sonier

    In the Press

  • Capital Finance and La Lettre des Juristes d'Affaires report on the recruitment of Denis Meyer as Counsel in the firm's Paris office

    In the Press

Back to top