Consultation on companies excluded from the employment allowance

[mudskipper]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ment-allowance

The Chancellor announced at Summer budget 2015 that, from April 2016, Employment Allowance would no longer be available to companies where the director is the sole employee. This is in order to focus the Employment Allowance on companies that support employment. This consultation seeks comments on the draft regulation to implement the new exclusion.

[Danglekt]

I think that's fair enough - I understood it was designed to encourage business to take people on - if you don't and use it for yourself it's not really within the spirit of what was intended is it.

Just my 2p

[DaveB]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu....ment-allowance

The Chancellor announced at Summer budget 2015 that, from April 2016, Employment Allowance would no longer be available to companies where the director is the sole employee. This is in order to focus the Employment Allowance on companies that support employment. This consultation seeks comments on the draft regulation to implement the new exclusion.

So strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?

[SueEllen]

I get page not found

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Try this one https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ment-allowance

[mudskipper]

I get page not found

Fixed.

[mudskipper]

So strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?

Yes, and this is why it's stupid.

I don't have a problem with not getting the relief - it was never meant for me.

But I think the scope of exclusion should be wider - it should apply to all directors and spouses regardless of company size. I don't like the discrimination against 1 person companies.


But I won't respond - it won't help me, and may remove the relief from other contractors who will continue to get it.

Although I will be amazed if it goes through in its current form.

[Maslins]

My view (as someone who gets full benefit of the employment allowance) is that they should simply scrap the employment allowance. I'm so fed up of there being rules, with thresholds, then rules to offset those rules with amounts, then further rules to ensure the second rules only apply to cases where they want. IMHO remove the problem by removing the employment allowance.

[SussexSeagull]

Nice while it lasted but probably fair enough.

Bigger fish to fry and all that.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

So strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?

That's how I interpret it. More than one person on payroll = you can claim allowance.