Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella
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!
Need rid of my accountant fast...Any good ones for under 50/pm
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by THEPUMA View PostOK fair enough. Are you aware that a dividend is a return on an equity investment whereas a salary is a reward for performance?Last edited by LisaContractorUmbrella; 13 December 2011, 15:32.Comment
-
Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View PostYes. So the initial investment would have to be 50/50 would it not which means that my spouse would make an equal contribution. My point is that an artificial structure is created to gain a tax advantage which has risks attached - SJD are aware of those risks and advise accordinglyComment
-
Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View PostYes. So the initial investment would have to be 50/50 would it not which means that my spouse would make an equal contribution. My point is that an artificial structure is created to gain a tax advantage which has risks attached - SJD are aware of those risks and advise accordingly
I could buy any publically listed share and own any available percentage of the overall shareholding without having to "contribute" to the actual day-to-day work undertaken by the company.
I would of course in those circumstances attend shareholder meetings etc. in the same way that my spouse would attend the such meetings for my limited if I chose to arrange such a set up.Proud owner of +5 Xeno Geek PointsComment
-
Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View PostYes. So the initial investment would have to be 50/50 would it not which means that my spouse would make an equal contribution. My point is that an artificial structure is created to gain a tax advantage which has risks attached - SJD are aware of those risks and advise accordingly
Does that change your point of view?Comment
-
Originally posted by THEPUMA View PostOK fair enough. Not sure if you are aware but there was a case called Arctic Systems heard at the House of Lords a few years ago. In that case, a married couple owned 50% of the shares each and made wholly unequal contributions to the business. The Lords held that the dividends, which were paid equally, were legitimate from a tax perspective.
Does that change your point of view?
Until they are happy, we won't promote share splitting. That doesn't mean however we won't allow a client to do it.Comment
-
Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostAre you not a little biased in favour of SJD here, Lisa?Comment
-
Originally posted by THEPUMA View PostOK fair enough. Not sure if you are aware but there was a case called Arctic Systems heard at the House of Lords a few years ago. In that case, a married couple owned 50% of the shares each and made wholly unequal contributions to the business. The Lords held that the dividends, which were paid equally, were legitimate from a tax perspective.
Does that change your point of view?Comment
-
Originally posted by Danielsjdaccountancy View PostNo it really doesn't. HMRC are not fans of income shifting, and will continue to look at this case by case.
Until they are happy, we won't promote share splitting. That doesn't mean however we won't allow a client to do it.
Incidentally, do you have any evidence that "HMRC are not fans of income shifting" in the context of contractors?Comment
-
Originally posted by Danielsjdaccountancy View PostThe revenue will review income shifting on a case by case basis. So this means they could investigate regardless of the Arctic case, do you really want that hassle and HMRC crawling over your books.
I would like to hear about your SJD experience, so yes, please do PM Ravello.
I stick by my advice, if you would like to be running your Limited company in a certain manner, then first ask your accountant, challenge them if you are not happy with the response, research it and if you are still happy, then proceed to run it the way you want, an accountant should not be closing doors for you if you think you can pass through them.
It's your company and your responsibility and more importantly, your pocket!Proud owner of +5 Xeno Geek PointsComment
- 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