Firm closing

[Roger Mexico]

11 minutes ago, woolley said:

Not sure what I've been doing for the past 30 years then, Glad.

1931 Act Companies

All companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1931 are designated as either public companies or private companies. A public limited company (PLC) may offer  its shares or debentures for sale to the general public and must, on an annual basis, deliver audited accounts to the Companies Registry. A private company may not offer shares or debentures to the public and, unless it is a subsidiary of a public company incorporated in the Isle of Man, it is not required to deliver audited accounts to the Companies Registry on an annual basis.

Presumably it was struck of for failing to renew its registration, though you wonder if they forgot to change the Register Office address and that was why they missed all those reminders.

[woolley]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

1931 Act Companies

All companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1931 are designated as either public companies or private companies. A public limited company (PLC) may offer  its shares or debentures for sale to the general public and must, on an annual basis, deliver audited accounts to the Companies Registry. A private company may not offer shares or debentures to the public and, unless it is a subsidiary of a public company incorporated in the Isle of Man, it is not required to deliver audited accounts to the Companies Registry on an annual basis.

Presumably it was struck of for failing to renew its registration, though you wonder if they forgot to change the Register Office address and that was why they missed all those reminders.

I see the nuance that they are not filed in the Registry and therefore not open to the public gaze, nor listed as available company documents. You do have to file accounts with the yearly tax return though. It's quite possible then that the requirement was complied with. At the same time, it is odd that there are no annual returns listed, and presumably no corporate charge paid. Anyone in business should certainly be aware of this requirement.

[The Phantom]

23 minutes ago, woolley said:

Not sure what I've been doing for the past 30 years then, Glad.

I'm guessing you're including them with your Tax Return?

Companies Registry don't see them, nor store/provide online access to them for Mr Nosey to have snoop. 

ETA just seen your post above confirming. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by The Phantom

[Harry Lamb]

11 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Is this one of those questions in SATs exams that people don't understand? Complete the following sentence:

Manx companies don't file accounts, they.....

dissolve?

[The Phantom]

32 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

It’s hard to support a claim that they were committed to continue in business when for nearly four years it seems they did literally bugger all to comply with IOM company law. 

Seems to be the case.  Too busy getting high on their own supply to actually do any of the boring statutory stuff of running a business. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, jackwhite said:

Bottle Monkey wanted to go back into the premises at Castletown and go back to court to get his license back. The Commissioners didn't allow it for various reasons. It's clear what a certain person thinks the reason is. 

It would clearly take some time for Bottle Monkey to sort its business affairs out and then get its licence back.  And the Courts might be hesitant under such circumstances.  So the Commissioners would be unlikely to indulge an open-ended commitment - and wouldn't want to be seen to, as public bodies are supposed to operate transparently (don't laugh).

I can't see the other one opening for at least a couple of years.  The developers haven't been particularly fast at developing their other Castletown sites and may be more concerned with getting things right than in a hurry.  And as I said above they're right at the beginning of the process.  Though even if the two were operating at the same time, it wouldn't necessarily mean they were undermining each other.  Nightlife tends to cluster together for a reason.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Roger Mexico
Garbled

[offshoremanxman]

43 minutes ago, jackwhite said:

That said there are companies out there who've been trading years who've apparently never submitted a return and the registry haven't picked up on it. They apparently only did on this occasion as it was drawn to their attention following a question.

It’s genuinely hard to see how any business people could incorporate a company and then not think that they might have to do something in relation to filing information about that company for nearly 4 years. Even their accountant (assuming they even bother with one of them) should advise them it’s a legal requirement to file an annual return. 

[The Voice of Reason]

9 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

Edits still show. Deletions don’t. But you can delete a post and re post it altered so that an edit doesn’t show if you’re quick enough.

Zoiks, you are right.

So that would enable a poster to rewrite their post and still legitimately claim they didn’t edit the original 

[The Voice of Reason]

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

VoR’s original accusation was that I’d edited my post and edited his post which had quoted my post.

I certainly can’t edit someone else’s post. I didn’t edit or change my post.

 

I certainly didn’t accuse you of editing my post.

[The Phantom]

12 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

It’s genuinely hard to see how any business people could incorporate a company and then not think that they might have to do something in relation to filing information about that company for nearly 4 years. Even their accountant (assuming they even bother with one of them) should advise them it’s a legal requirement to file an annual return. 

You'd be amazed how often it actually happens. Some people are just shit at doing company statutory admin or are completely oblivious to the requirments. With Quickbooks and various similar accounting apps, they quite possibly didn't have an accountant.

Even if he was making a loss and the company was going down the pan, there's no reason to not adhere to the requirements.

[jackwhite]

44 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It would clearly take some time for Bottle Monkey to sort its business affairs out and then get its licence back.  And the Courts might be hesitant under such circumstances.  So the Commissioners would be unlikely to indulge an open-ended commitment - and wouldn't want to be seen to, as public bodies are supposed to operate transparently (don't laugh).

I can't see the other one opening for at least a couple of years.  The developers haven't been particularly fast at developing their other Castletown sites and may be more concerned with getting things right than in a hurry.  And as I said above they're right at the beginning of the process.  Though even if the two were operating at the same time, it wouldn't necessarily mean they were undermining each other.  Nightlife tends to cluster together for a reason.

They would have been back in the alcohol courts this month if the Councillors had given the go ahead. 

[TheTeapot]

Castletown Commissioners have been hugely supportive of Bottle Monkeys attempts to repurpose the old Fire Station, and any suggestion otherwise is completely and utterly wrong. 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

Not sure what I've been doing for the past 30 years then, Glad.

Is it a Manx company, or are you thinking of filing the tax return with Treasury? 

 

ETA just saw the other posts.  

Also the registry raise a penalty for late filing of the annual return and normally pick it up quickly.  They tend to do strike offs in batches.  Not sure why this was allowed to go on for so long.  You can restore the company, but that involves filing the missed returns and paying the fees and penalties.  Not sure if there is a time limit for doing so though. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Gladys

[woolley]

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Is it a Manx company, or are you thinking of filing the tax return with Treasury? 

Yes. If you read the subsequent posts, tax return to The Treasury which requires accounts to be filed with it. Not Registry, so difference is not in public domain.

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

Yes. If you read the subsequent posts, tax return to The Treasury which requires accounts to be filed with it. Not Registry, so difference is not in public domain.

Thanks Woolley, I read them after I posted.  The post showing the registry filings expressing surprise at no accounts was wrong.  They are not public record and the company may well have their tax and accounting affairs up to date, but the registry file will not tell you that.