Anyone used accountants4contractors?

[tim123]

Lets be realistic here. A fair wage for somebody running the accounts side for a whole business would be in the £30,000~ a year mark.

For one invoice a month and one VAT return a quarter (and perhaps monthly PAYE)

You're 'aving a larf.

No-one in their right mind would EMPLOY someone on an annual basis for such a small amount of work, they would engage a freelance book-keeper on an hourly rate.

And please stop asking me if things are fair. All I am doing here is explaining to you the dynamics of your company that are the rational behind this legislation. I have made no comment upon its rights or wrongs and by asking "is it fair" you are implying that I have said that I think it is, which is something that I HAVE NOT DONE!

tim

[oracleslave]

For one invoice a month and one VAT return a quarter (and perhaps monthly PAYE)

You're 'aving a larf.

No-one in their right mind would EMPLOY someone on an annual basis for such a small amount of work, they would engage a freelance book-keeper on an hourly rate.

And please stop asking me if things are fair. All I am doing here is explaining to you the dynamics of your company that are the rational behind this legislation. I have made no comment upon its rights or wrongs and by asking "is it fair" you are implying that I have said that I think it is, which is something that I HAVE NOT DONE!

tim

What are the implications for someone like me who's wife does the accounts etc as discussed above, but also has take the odd contract (about 1 a year) for the last couple of years. In other words she has also been a revenue earner (although admittedly significantly less than me) as well as doing the admin/accounting type tasks.

[Ardesco]

For one invoice a month and one VAT return a quarter (and perhaps monthly PAYE)

You're 'aving a larf.

No-one in their right mind would EMPLOY someone on an annual basis for such a small amount of work, they would engage a freelance book-keeper on an hourly rate.

And please stop asking me if things are fair. All I am doing here is explaining to you the dynamics of your company that are the rational behind this legislation. I have made no comment upon its rights or wrongs and by asking "is it fair" you are implying that I have said that I think it is, which is something that I HAVE NOT DONE!

tim

Well in the case of my business it is quite a bit more than that as she runs all the plan b and plan c stuff as well, but I digress.

The fact is you may say it is not something worth employing somebody for, but if you did what sort of wage would you expect to be paying them? I can't see anybody accepting a job with my company to do monthly invoicing, vat, PAYE etc for less than minimum wage, and I don't see myself finding somebody competent for less than £20,000 a year. Does this mean that the IR can go into any business they like and say that you shouldn't employ somebody because they don't think that the person is earning a fair wage for the job they are doing and that they should be paid less?

I keep using the term fair because that is what the legislations is promoting, a "fair" wage. I am not asking you if it is right or wrong, I am asking you what you think "fair" is in regards to this legislation.

If the legislation explained in detail what it meant by fair then I may not be making as much noise, the problem is how do we define fair?

[SueEllen]

Then you obviously misunderstand my post.

I CAN clearly see that it is intended to target ALL business, and I am sure that I said exactly that.

tim

You quoted this previously:

OTOH, it's not meant to affect the family running a shop together, and apart from the need to keep some records to show how they have shared the work, doesn't. (Yes I know the paper work will be hated, but it is necessary if this change happens).

Well it will affect them by:
1. Causing them more work as they will have to generate and keep more paperwork for everything they do in the business.
2. Putting them under the threat of being accused of income shifting if one of them can't work for a large part of a year or more.

Other small business organisations moan about the government (of any political persuasion) causing more red tape for small businesses this is exactly what this draft legislation if implemented will cause.

[tim123]

You quoted this previously:



Well it will affect them by:
1. Causing them more work as they will have to generate and keep more paperwork for everything they do in the business.
2. Putting them under the threat of being accused of income shifting if one of them can't work for a large part of a year or more.

Other small business organisations moan about the government (of any political persuasion) causing more red tape for small businesses this is exactly what this draft legislation if implemented will cause.

Sorry, the second quote does not contradict the first. (and I did say in the second that it would create more paperwork).

I fail to see what you are suggesting I have said, that is significantly different to what you have said?

tim

[tim123]

Well in the case of my business it is quite a bit more than that as she runs all the plan b and plan c stuff as well, but I digress.

The fact is you may say it is not something worth employing somebody for, but if you did what sort of wage would you expect to be paying them? I can't see anybody accepting a job with my company to do monthly invoicing, vat, PAYE etc for less than minimum wage, and I don't see myself finding somebody competent for less than £20,000 a year. Does this mean that the IR can go into any business they like and say that you shouldn't employ somebody because they don't think that the person is earning a fair wage for the job they are doing and that they should be paid less?

I keep using the term fair because that is what the legislations is promoting, a "fair" wage. I am not asking you if it is right or wrong, I am asking you what you think "fair" is in regards to this legislation.

If the legislation explained in detail what it meant by fair then I may not be making as much noise, the problem is how do we define fair?

1) You are in a small minority if your partner does more than I have suggested (wrt company accounts).

2) The legislation does not stop you employing her and paying her a wage. It stops (discourages) you from distributing profits to her. However, if any of her work generates additional income then you are allowed to distribute profits to her. ISTM that this is consistant with how you would pay A.N.Other for the task.

3) Fair, oh I see what you meant. The above para is an explanation of what is fair. It would be imposible for the legislation to define fair as it will differ from case to case, but the simple (to explain) test is the one above - can you convince a disinterested party that you would give the same deal to a person who was not connected to you?

tim

[Ardesco]

3) Fair, oh I see what you meant. The above para is an explanation of what is fair. It would be imposible for the legislation to define fair as it will differ from case to case, but the simple (to explain) test is the one above - can you convince a disinterested party that you would give the same deal to a person who was not connected to you?

Well yes easy to convince somebody that I would pay my wife the same for the work she is doing as I would somebody else. The problem is the shares.

My wife put money into the business when I started up and as a result got a shareholding. She now has shares unless she sells them and there is nothing I can do about that. When I pay out a divi I legally have to give my wife divi money as well, I can't ignore the fact she is a shareholder. I would also not gift shares to somebody that I employed to do her job should she stop (They wouldn't have put any money into the business, why should they have shares?

Here is my problem with the new legislation. Why should my wife have to relinquish her shares now that they have decided they don't like the fact she gets divis? If she did decide to stop doing the job and I employed somebody else why should she still not profit from the shares she purchased when the business was started up? I own some Barclays shares, I wasn't forced to sell them when I stopped working for Barclays and I still get divi's. Why should the rules be different for my company and my wife?

No matter how much you try to argue against it, it is a cynical move designed to screw over small companies while keeping large ones happy with the status quo.