Adding house wife as a ltd company director

[DeludedKitten]

I have sufficient experience of representing myself at Appeal Court level to present a valid case, thus incurring minimum costs.

You went to the Appeal Court with no legal representation??

What's the reference for the High Court hearing and the Appeals Court one as well?

[northernladuk]

You went to the Appeal Court with no legal representation??

What's the reference for the High Court hearing and the Appeals Court one as well?

The more he says the less I believe.

[TechRiskPartners]

Sounds like you've already set up the company and made her 50% shareholder. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with paying her 50% dividends on top of her full time salary. In terms of whether it would be too much tax on her, that is down to perception and what you consider too much.

The facts are that you'll both get a dividend allowance of £2k where you don't pay any tax on it. The remaining dividend your wife receives will be taxed at 32.5% since she's already a higher rate tax payer. That rate will apply up to £150k income at which point it'll be taxed at 38.1%. She'll also start losing her personal allowance over £100k gross income.

If you're looking to be the most tax efficient route and paying as little additional personal tax as possible, then you're probably better off not including her in the company at all assuming she's content in her full time role.

Thanks. Kept her as Director and removed her from Shareholding. As I am starting, will see how it goes before making her a contractor or I go solo. Thanks for your time.


Sent from my iPad using Contractor UK Forum

[JohntheBike]

You went to the Appeal Court with no legal representation??

What's the reference for the High Court hearing and the Appeals Court one as well?

Many years ago I was an avid poster on these fora under a different pseudonym, but many were strongly opposed to my opinions and actions. So I'm reluctant to publish details again here. But rest assured, what I've stated is entirely correct. If it's allowable on these fora, you can advise me of your private Email address and I'll send you the details.

[JohntheBike]

The more he says the less I believe.

be careful, as I can prove what I say.

[mudskipper]

Many years ago I was an avid poster on these fora under a different pseudonym, but many were strongly opposed to my opinions and actions. So I'm reluctant to publish details again here. But rest assured, what I've stated is entirely correct. If it's allowable on these fora, you can advise me of your private Email address and I'll send you the details.

Court of Appeal or EAT?

[JohntheBike]

Court of Appeal or EAT?

EAT December 2002 heard by Mr. Justice Elias

[mudskipper]

EAT December 2002 heard by Mr. Justice Elias

OK, so not the Appeals Court.

[JohntheBike]

OK, so not the Appeals Court.

that's for Tax related issues, amongst others, as I understand it and the EAT has equivalent priority in law. But I guess someone will come along here and correct me.

edit,
this is the court structure as I understand it -

Redirect Notice

which shows the upper court from tribunals as the Appeal Court. So, based on that structure the EAT is under the jurisdiction of the Appeal Court.

[DeludedKitten]

that's for Tax related issues, amongst others, as I understand it and the EAT has equivalent priority in law.

Amongst the other issues that the Appeals Court might hear, you would find employment cases.

An appeal from the EAT would go to the Appeals Court, so they do not have equivalent priority at all.

The legal process for going through the Appeals Court (and possibly beyond) is significantly longer, more arduous and more expensive than just rocking up with your £1600 at an EAT and arguing your case yourself.

One would generally expect an eminent legal mind to understand these things.