Originally posted by northernladuk
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Hire wife as trainee
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostIf she's interested in UX, I received a marketing email for this course earlier today:
https://purplegriffon.com/courses/ot...-ux-foundationComment
-
Originally posted by meanttobeworking View Post
I hate it when you're right'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
If you really do want to help her learn and not bothered about the tax element would it be worth looking in to putting her on as an apprentice.
Comment
-
Originally posted by meanttobeworking View Post
Out of genuine interest… how would you say this changes anything? I’d still have to pay her a salary (and get the small tax break), and the government would be down £14,250 for her training. But yet somehow it seems more legit ?'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
I've no idea. Just a thought that popped in to my head that might be worth looking at to save some money.
But if I take them on on my own and do the same thing, if somehow feels shady.Comment
-
Originally posted by meanttobeworking View Post
That's the weird thing. There's a government scheme which allows me to take someone with zero experience on, and the government will pay their training costs up to £15,000, and they insist I pay them a wage (which would be tax deductible).
But if I take them on on my own and do the same thing, if somehow feels shady.See You Next TuesdayComment
-
Originally posted by Lance View Post
shady? You mean too good to be true?'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by Lance View Post
shady? You mean too good to be true?
As I've said above, I'm not looking for someone to reassure me it's all ok if it isn't. This post comes from a motivation to get things right, not to try and get away with something wrong. I'm looking for someone to put into words what's wrong with one that isn't wrong with the other. But nobody can (yet). I'm starting to think that perhaps either arrangement would give me the same uneasiness because it's someone known to me, rather than a stranger.
Comment
-
Originally posted by meanttobeworking View Post
What would you say the difference is between the two arrangements though? Both involve someone with zero experience. Both involve payment of a modest salary for which the Ltd receives a small tax break. One costs the government circa £15k, the other costs them circa nothing. Yet the one that costs the government more seems to feel legit, whilst the one that doesn't seems not to.
As I've said above, I'm not looking for someone to reassure me it's all ok if it isn't. This post comes from a motivation to get things right, not to try and get away with something wrong. I'm looking for someone to put into words what's wrong with one that isn't wrong with the other. But nobody can (yet). I'm starting to think that perhaps either arrangement would give me the same uneasiness because it's someone known to me, rather than a stranger.
A large company putting a junior consultant through an MBA is OK.
A PSC putting its owner through an MBA is definitely not OK.
The difference being the scale, and the recipient of the benefit.
Who's to say that what you suggest is going to cause problems? The thing is HMRC won't bat an eyelid if you're a 50+ company and get a few juniors on an apprentice. But you're not, and you're not proposing that.
They might bat more than an eyelid and look a lot closer.
For me, I'd prefer to avoid the gaze of HMRC entirely. Not because I'm doing anything wrong, but because I don't have time to deal it.
You could find out that you're absolutely fine doing what you propose. But it might take 2 years and involve a deep investigation of the last 6 years of your business.
See You Next TuesdayComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment