That kind of defeats the purpose of having a nominee. If you appoint nominees but still have access to the bank account, you then have direct control over the company, which is really blurring the lines of passive UBO/investor and directors. A tax authorities would definitely use that against you.kkein said:
Is there any risk to have a nominee if UBO is the only with access to banking?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the interesting insight. Does it happen often that the tax authority digs deeper into companies with nominees to check who has access to company accounts? (because access can be shared, too, afaik)Sols said:
That kind of defeats the purpose of having a nominee. If you appoint nominees but still have access to the bank account, you then have direct control over the company, which is really blurring the lines of passive UBO/investor and directors. A tax authorities would definitely use that against you.
Click to expand...
Yes, it happens.kkein said:
Thanks for the interesting insight. Does it happen often that the tax authority digs deeper into companies with nominees to check who has access to company accounts? (because access can be shared, too, afaik)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback, and the suggestion!
Following this, would be interested to know alsokkein said:
Thanks for the feedback, and the suggestion!
I suppose it's better to add the director to the account before the tax office starts looking into the tax return 🙂
Hopefully it's ok if UBO is owner. I feel taxman can't complain too much about that?
Click to expand...
UBO means Ultimate Beneficial Owner, so yes, that's implied. 😉kkein said:
I suppose it's better to add the director to the account before the tax office starts looking into the tax return 🙂
Hopefully it's ok if UBO is owner. I feel taxman can't complain too much about that?
Click to expand...