Until this reports back, I'd suggest that no one is in a solid position to commit either way. I'd be surprised if any accountant is recommending a position at this stage. Ultimately, regardless of how poorly the legislation is drafted, the proposed changes were specifically intended to focus the allowance on companies aiming to employ additional people, so some caution is needed.
-
-
If you have a spouse with low or no income give her a share in the company and a salaryComment
-
You miss PC taking out 13 weeks of JSA to top his income up too.Originally posted by northernladuk View PostThe greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't existComment
-
'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
Comment
-
Why? Paying my wife a salary for 5 or 6 years now and recently changed the ownership from 40/60 to 49/51 specifically asked my accountant if that would attract attention so close before the tax changes coming in in April from HMRC and he said noOriginally posted by northernladuk View Post
:
Well that's the worst advice of the day award sorted.Last edited by Eirikur; 18 February 2016, 15:00.Comment
-
Because there are rules about how the shares are given and the wife has to do something to earn the wage. You cant pay her when she does f all.. And 8k for filing receipts won't wash.
Just to state you have to do it without an explanation or highlighting risks etc is very poor advice.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Mine's painting the office next week.Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't existComment
-
She's gonna have a hard time doing that. She's round mine Tuesday and Wednesday and she ain't doing no painting.Originally posted by LondonManc View PostMine's painting the office next week.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Try that instead.Originally posted by Eirikur View Post
And don't worry too much about NLUK on this, the rules about giving shares to your wife are very relaxed. And HMRC are very unlikely to challenge a nominal salary for a wife, because there just isn't much money in it for them, and it is too hard for them to prove she shouldn't get the salary (unless you are an absolute moron in what you tell them).
"Oh, yeah, my wife does nothing in the company, I just pay her to save taxes." Who would say that?
"My wife covers the phones for me, files paperwork, gives advice on which contracts I should accept, helps arrange my business travel, blah, blah, blah. She is always available to help with these things whenever I need it, and to get that kind of a personal assistant who is on call that often would be very expensive. I should probably pay her more, actually, but instead I've given her shares."
Yeah, that's what you'd say. And are they going to drag you into court to say, "He paid her £8K when it really should have only been £4K"? And then the case is thrown out because they are being sexist and trying to claim you are overpaying a woman? LOL. Not likely.Comment
-
Simple enough:Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
1. As of right now, it will be best in 2016-17 for a two director husband-wife company to pay salary of £11K and claim Employment Allowance.
2. There is a consultation which could result in that changing, in which case EA won't be available, and the best salary will be £8060. We'll be in touch if that happens.
Unless an accountant thinks his clients are idiots, he can make that kind of recommendation right now.
But then, given some of the comments we see on this forum, I suppose we could assume that every accountant has some idiot clients. So maybe you are right and they shouldn't make any recommendations yet.
Comment
Comment