Adding Spouse to the Company

[northernladuk]

Hmm weirdly enough I can't quite eeks post but yeah you are right and wouldn't argue that point. Just narks me off when people have the attitude they just want to do it as a pure tax move. Pay her and give divs just because someone told them they can. There is more to it than that. Just like to play devil's advocate.


And I can't do it so I'm sulking.

[eek]

Hmm weirdly enough I can't quite eeks post but yeah you are right and wouldn't argue that point. Just narks me off when people have the attitude they just want to do it as a pure tax move. Pay her and give divs just because someone told them they can. There is more to it than that. Just like to play devil's advocate.


And I can't do it so I'm sulking.

I think I covered that bit in "many spouses will earn enough to not make it worthwhile". Even if we ignore the fact you ain't married your other half earns too much anyway...

[BrilloPad]

Hmm weirdly enough I can't quite eeks post but yeah you are right and wouldn't argue that point. Just narks me off when people have the attitude they just want to do it as a pure tax move. Pay her and give divs just because someone told them they can. There is more to it than that. Just like to play devil's advocate.


And I can't do it so I'm sulking.

You think tax avoidance is not a good motive? You muppet. I bet you have no ISAs either?

On the other hand celebrate being single! What happened to NLYUK?

[d000hg]

Depends what the OP means, really - my wife is a modest shareholder because, frankly, she took much as much risk as me in this endeavour and I wanted to make sure she got some direct rewards out of it.

Wasn't (isn't?) being married to you reward enough?

[VectraMan]

It's not artifically lowering the tax burden as confirmed by https://www.ipse.co.uk/ipse-tax-vict...in-house-lords . Sharing the profits of a company with your spouse is perfectly acceptable as they share the risk of the enterprise.

Granted there is minimal real risk and many spouses will earn enough to make not worthwhile but its not artificial and definitely not aggressive (in fact it's little different from deciding in whose names the savings are in)..

There's no risk with a contractor "business" other than the fact the breadwinner might not bring home the bacon, and that applies equally to anyone married to a permie. Unless the spouse is genuinely contributing then it's entirely artificial. Whether it's wrong is a different argument, though you could argue it amounts to a tax on being single.

[eek]

There's no risk with a contractor "business" other than the fact the breadwinner might not bring home the bacon, and that applies equally to anyone married to a permie. Unless the spouse is genuinely contributing then it's entirely artificial. Whether it's wrong is a different argument, though you could argue it amounts to a tax on being single.

That argument leads to the FLC and all the pain that will create.

[VectraMan]

That argument leads to the FLC and all the pain that will create.

Free Loading Contractor?

[GlenW]

My wife is my company's secretary, tax benefits make it worth doing but the role play sex is brilliant as well.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

If you're going to make your spouse a 50% shareholder, you might want to make her a company secretary or director too otherwise she won't be eligible for ER on her share of the capital distribution when you one day shut the company down and will have some extra CGT to pay.

[eek]

If you're going to make your spouse a 50% shareholder, you might want to make her a company secretary or director too otherwise she won't be eligible for ER on her share of the capital distribution when you one day shut the company down and will have some extra CGT to pay.

Or you change the holdings prior to closure