Wife as a secretary or assistant or company director

[SueEllen]

Now I'm confused because you've said that a company officer doesn't "end up on the pay roll" and then "they should be on the pay roll".

Do you want to pay your other company officers - yes or no?

[missinggreenfields]

Do you want to pay your other company officers - yes or no?

Yes. But they don't end up on the payroll, according to your earlier post. So how do they get paid?

[SueEllen]

Yes. But they don't end up on the payroll, according to your earlier post. So how do they get paid?

They don't.

Nowhere in any of my posts did I state they get paid.

If the thread confused you it was because we weren't talking about your specific situation but someone's spouse.

[Jog On]

Somebody can be an officer of a company, company secretary or director, and have another job. However in those cases they don't end up on the pay roll though they are entitled to expenses for company business.

Does this include company pension contributions?

[missinggreenfields]

They don't.

Nowhere in any of my posts did I state they get paid.

If the thread confused you it was because we weren't talking about your specific situation but someone's spouse.

No, you said the exact opposite - you said that officers of the company don't end up on the pay roll:

Somebody can be an officer of a company, company secretary or director, and have another job. However in those cases they don't end up on the pay roll though they are entitled to expenses for company business.

So if we accept that you're right, officers of the company don't get paid by payroll. Which made me question that I've been doing it wrong all these years by paying the company officers via payroll.

But it's clear now - you pay through payroll, contrary to your original post. Thanks for explaining it

[WordIsBond]

No, you said the exact opposite - you said that officers of the company don't end up on the pay roll:

So if we accept that you're right, officers of the company don't get paid by payroll. Which made me question that I've been doing it wrong all these years by paying the company officers via payroll.

But it's clear now - you pay through payroll, contrary to your original post. Thanks for explaining it

Yeah, that was a little confusing, but if you read her other posts, not so much.

Yes, you CAN continue to pay company officers through payroll if they have another job, but it's not tax efficient to do so. In fact, it's daft. And if you have company officers, who have another job, that you've been paying via payroll "all these years," well, you've "been doing it wrong all these years." Get someone who knows what they are doing to help you sort it out, and quit making extra payments to David Cameron and his cronies -- they obviously don't know how to use the money well anyway. (This should not be taken as an endorsement of the absurd idea that his rivals know how to use it any better, BTW).

[SueEllen]

Does this include company pension contributions?

No.

Fails the "wholly and exclusively" test for trade so considered as tax avoidence.

[missinggreenfields]

Does this include company pension contributions?

Yes - if the company pays into the pension plan of the officer, then that is a business expense that is deducted before corporation tax is calculated.

[missinggreenfields]

Yeah, that was a little confusing, but if you read her other posts, not so much.

Yes, you CAN continue to pay company officers through payroll if they have another job, but it's not tax efficient to do so. In fact, it's daft. And if you have company officers, who have another job, that you've been paying via payroll "all these years," well, you've "been doing it wrong all these years." Get someone who knows what they are doing to help you sort it out, and quit making extra payments to David Cameron and his cronies -- they obviously don't know how to use the money well anyway. (This should not be taken as an endorsement of the absurd idea that his rivals know how to use it any better, BTW).

How is it wrong to pay via payroll? Doesn't it hinge on the total remuneration across everything?

[WordIsBond]

How is it wrong to pay via payroll? Doesn't it hinge on the total remuneration across everything?

It's not morally, ethically, or legally wrong. It's just a waste of money.

If an officer is in regular employment elsewhere, they will be earning more than the personal allowance in income apart from YourCo, which means using payroll rather than dividends to pay them is always going to be less tax efficient. Do the maths. Consider the income tax they pay on the earnings (div vs salary), employer NI, employee NI, and corporation tax.

This is still true now even with the changes to dividend tax. It was even more true in the past.

If officers are not in regular income and are earning less than the personal allowance, the calculations change, but if you pay a salary that takes them over the personal allowance, again, you are not tax-efficient.