Companies Act 2006: No Secretary Required

[Lowery]

Found this on the DTI website...so apparently Private Companies no longer have to appoint a company Secretary.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/bbf/co-act-200...page35194.html

Does anyone know any details on this. For example it only applies to Private Companies of a certain size?

Are there actually any benefits to appointing a Secretary when you are the sole Director and Shareholder??

[Nixon Williams]

Found this on the DTI website...so apparently Private Companies no longer have to appoint a company Secretary.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/bbf/co-act-200...page35194.html

Does anyone know any details on this. For example it only applies to Private Companies of a certain size?

Are there actually any benefits to appointing a Secretary when you are the sole Director and Shareholder??

This will apply to small companies, the exact date as far as I know has yet to be announced but will towards the end of the year.

I cannot see why most small companies will need a Company Secretary but it will be for each company to decide.

Alan

[Sockpuppet]

Leave it as is in my view.

I find having someone else around that can sign stuff good if you ever need them for that. Unless they are costing you its probably more hassle to fire them now than just leave them where they are.

[Darren@UptonAccountants]

Ca

The new provisions also make sure that companies have at least one named director, preventing the sole use of nominee companies as directors.

[TheFaQQer]

If you have a company secretary, you can pay them to do it. Since my wife is a lower rate tax payer than I am, she is co. sec. and gets paid to do it.

Faqqer

[VectraMan]

If you have a company secretary, you can pay them to do it. Since my wife is a lower rate tax payer than I am, she is co. sec. and gets paid to do it.

Sounds like tax avoidance to me.

The one man company thing makes a lot of sense IMO. Having to have two people seems rather old fashioned.

[Cowboy Bob]

If you have a company secretary, you can pay them to do it. Since my wife is a lower rate tax payer than I am, she is co. sec. and gets paid to do it.

Faqqer

I think you'll find that paying someone to just be company secretary is stretching it a bit, and you might have a hard time convincing the IR that the salary is justified if you ever have an S660 investigation (and the Arctic case fails). It's much better to get her to do nominal stuff (filling out the P11D, dealing with PAYE stuff, finding contracts, dealing with agents etc) and then paying her for that IMO.

[TheFaQQer]

I think you'll find that paying someone to just be company secretary is stretching it a bit, and you might have a hard time convincing the IR that the salary is justified if you ever have an S660 investigation (and the Arctic case fails). It's much better to get her to do nominal stuff (filling out the P11D, dealing with PAYE stuff, finding contracts, dealing with agents etc) and then paying her for that IMO.

Sorry - should have been clearer.

Those are the typical things that the Company Secretary is responsible for, which is where the justification of paying someone to do it comes from. She also is responsible for signing the contracts, some purchase orders, office supplies etc. The post of Company Secretary carries with it serious responsibility, and it's only right that that person is paid for it. Since some accountancy firms will offer to be company secretary and charge accordingly for it, why not an individual providing the same level of input??

I'm fairly confident that I can argue that the salary that my wife earns from being my Company Secretary is more justified than the salary that Victoria Beckham draws for being company secretary to David's business!