One man band LTD company & Auto Enrolment in a pension scheme

[desir]

No. It is referring to "individuals" or "personal service workers". YourCo is neither of these things. That section does not apply to you. The only section that is relevant is the part under the heading "one man companies".

The use of "Personal service workers" means disguised employment performed via a limited company.

Although you may concur with a previous poster that "PSC" has no meaning in law; it is still used quite often, for example...

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05976.pdf

Personal service companies : recent debate - Parliament UK

Individuals working in a number of fields often provide their services to clients through a personal service company (PSC), rather than taking up employment with that client. The client pays the service company for the work they have done, without deducting income tax under PAYE or National Insurance contributions (NICs).

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

The use of "Personal service workers" means disguised employment performed via a limited company.

No it doesn't. It refers to self-employed people.

The document you quoted is clearly distinguishing between individuals (i.e. self employed, who may be a "personal service worker") or companies (which may be considered a "personal service company"). Neither term has an legal basis but they are still different terms.

Otherwise, why would the document have two distinct sections?

See this:
https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/...nt-exemptions/

[desir]

No it doesn't. It refers to self-employed people.

The document you quoted is clearly distinguishing between individuals (i.e. self employed, who may be a "personal service worker") or companies (which may be considered a "personal service company"). Neither term has an legal basis but they are still different terms.

Otherwise, why would the document have two distinct sections?

See this:
https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/...nt-exemptions/

They are saying that a personal service contractor is really a "personal service worker" and therefore should be automatically enrolled.

The 2nd section about holding office in a limited company, of course, is meant to confirm that someone holding office does not necessarily need to be enrolled.

However; when that office holder is also employed (or if another is simply employed) by the company; then it seems the Pension Regulator is capable of making a deemed employment decision based upon if the employee is a "personal service worker" or not.

From the PDF file in question:

18.
No single factor, by itself, is capable of being conclusive in
determining whether a contract is ‘for services’ or ‘of service’.
However, individuals are likely to be considered as personal service
workers (workers under the contract of services) if most, or all, of the
following statements are true:
•
The employer relies on the individual’s expertise and expects
them to perform the work themselves
•
There is an element of subordination between the employer
and individual, for example the individual reports to the
employer’s managers or directors in respect of the specific
operation or project on which they are contracted to work
•
The contractual provisions state that the contract is not a
contract for services between the employer and the individual’s
own business
•
The contract provides for employee benefits such as holiday
pay, sick pay, notice, fees, expenses etc
•
There is a mutual obligation set down in the contract to
provide or do the work
•
The individual does not incur any financial risk in carrying out
the work
•
The employer provides tools, equipment and other
requirements to the individual to carry out the work

[JRCT]

Have you not answered your own question in your original post?

One-person companies
29.
If an individual is a director of a company and the company has no
other employees, that individual is not a worker by virtue of any
office that they hold or contract of employment under which they
work. The company is therefore not subject to the employer dutiesin relation to that individual.

[Forbes Young]

Have you not answered your own question in your original post?

One-person companies
29.
If an individual is a director of a company and the company has no
other employees, that individual is not a worker by virtue of any
office that they hold or contract of employment under which they
work. The company is therefore not subject to the employer dutiesin relation to that individual.

Yes - its our understanding that if you are a one person operation running through your own ltd company as a worker/director/shareholder, then autoenrolment doesnt apply. It is extremely rare that any such person would have a contract of employment and would not be categorised as a "job holder".
Similarly if there is a husband/wife team operating though their own ltd company and share-split, they would not be caught by these regulations either - again neither would tend to have a contract of employment and their company would make supplies via contracts for services.

[SteelyDan]

Yes - its our understanding that if you are a one person operation running through your own ltd company as a worker/director/shareholder, then autoenrolment doesnt apply. It is extremely rare that any such person would have a contract of employment and would not be categorised as a "job holder".
Similarly if there is a husband/wife team operating though their own ltd company and share-split, they would not be caught by these regulations either - again neither would tend to have a contract of employment and their company would make supplies via contracts for services.

So what's the definitive answer on this?

I received a letter recently from Pensions Regulator, but until I read all the associated gumpf, I can't yet work out if, under current arrangements, this applies (Me-Co Dir & shareholder; Wife-employee & shareholder). What are others doing with similar MyCo set-ups?
I'll run it past my accountant next week, but in the interim...

[franktouch]

It could be a 10 man company and not need auto enrolment, but if a company runs a PAYE scheme, meaning paying wages to even one worker then auto enrolment is needed.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

It could be a 10 man company and not need auto enrolment, but if a company runs a PAYE scheme, meaning paying wages to even one worker then auto enrolment is needed.

If what you're saying is a one man company has to auto enroll just because they operate a PAYE scheme, then you're talking rubbish.

[SteelyDan]

Spoke to a/c this morning.
Seems that, as MyCo employs wife, and she receives a salary, then I need to comply with this

Not doubting what they say, but anyone else received conflicting views on this, particular this previous forum comment: "In other words contractors running a single person or two person operation (with their spouse) are not under the definition of a “jobholder”."?

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Spoke to a/c this morning.
Seems that, as MyCo employs wife, and she receives a salary, then I need to comply with this

Not doubting what they say, but anyone else received conflicting views on this, particular this previous forum comment: "In other words contractors running a single person or two person operation (with their spouse) are not under the definition of a “jobholder”."?

I'd say that you are potentially within the scope of auto enrolment but whether you HAVE to auto enroll probably depends on how much you pay yourself and your wife as salary. There are thresholds.

My wife is company secretary but she also performs other roles in return for a modest salary. It's well below the threshold for AE though.

My own accountant is still doing his own research into this so didn't have a definitive answer for me yet but I'm not too worried about it.

If your spouse is just a company officer then this wouldn't normally make her a worker unless she also has a contract of employment.