Employment Allowance, To Claim, Or Not To Claim...

[john@UKCA]

Only if both of them are wage earners.

I only respond to you because other people are reading and might be confused by your rubbish.

I just needed to correct your initial rubbish post about 2 directors not qualifying and dissmissing the CIOT quote.

If you bothered to look at the draft legislation published in November 15 and the enacted legislation a few weeks back you would have found that they are the same- nothings changed.

[jamesbrown]

I doubt you will get an answer.

I know, but it's still worth flogging the dead horse that UKCA probably isn't an accountant at all...

[WordIsBond]

I just needed to correct your initial rubbish post about 2 directors not qualifying and dissmissing the CIOT quote.

If you bothered to look at the draft legislation published in November 15 and the enacted legislation a few weeks back you would have found that they are the same- nothings changed.

Just in case anyone is reading this tripe, if you appoint a second director and that second director is not earning a wage (maybe because he/she has a second job and so the wage would be incurring taxes), that will not qualify you for the EA, despite what the alleged person quoted here is saying and despite what the CIOT said.

It is not enough to appoint a second director. You have to pay the second director a wage. Having two directors DOES NOT QUALIFY YOU unless the second also receives a wage. So to tell people that appointing a second director will solve it is worse than useless, it can actually get people in trouble.

And yes, I know that the draft legislation and the enacted legislation are the same. That's why I wasn't too bothered about just posting the draft legislation. Same thing. What have you proved (that you hadn't already proved about the quality of your "advice")?

[WordIsBond]

I know, but it's still worth flogging the dead horse that UKCA probably isn't an accountant at all...

It's probably the sockie of someone who got tired of NLUK's "have you asked your accountant" routine and decided to try to discredit accountants.

The sad thing is, there are people who use the title "Accountant" and have no qualifications, no accountability, and some of them are probably even worse than this guy.

[SueEllen]

It's probably the sockie of someone who got tired of NLUK's "have you asked your accountant" routine and decided to try to discredit accountants.

The sad thing is, there are people who use the title "Accountant" and have no qualifications, no accountability, and some of them are probably even worse than this guy.

I feel like complaining to admin about the account as it's unfair to the owners and staff of helpful businesses who post here.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

So simple these new rules that they've taken up 5 pages of discussion...

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

This truly is an object lesson in brand management. Or maybe it should be abject.

[jamesbrown]

I do like a good handbags-at-dawn fisticuffs between (alleged) accountants

[northernladuk]

It's probably the sockie of someone who got tired of NLUK's "have you asked your accountant" routine and decided to try to discredit accountants.
.

I still think that's good advice in a majority of scenarios we get

[WordIsBond]

I still think that's good advice in a majority of scenarios we get

Of course it is. It's just that there's a question that maybe should come first: "Do you have an accountant that's any good?"