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!
Do you mean it won’t be reintroduced into the FB for 21/22? Seems weird and unlikely that they would make this decision now...
There is a 2nd reading of the FB today via videoconferencing. Apparently Off Payroll reforms were slipped back in with forward dating for next April so they kick in automatically. No additional reviews etc. Very underhand.
I assume what AndyC means is that this has been un-added.
There is a 2nd reading of the FB today via videoconferencing. Apparently Off Payroll reforms were slipped back in with forward dating for next April so they kick in automatically. No additional reviews etc. Very underhand.
I assume what AndyC means is that this has been un-added.
Oh, interesting. Wasn’t aware they were handling it like that. Assumed it had been exorcised until the next FB.
Probably a non-event at best. At worst, maybe a signal that they want to consider something more drastic
Oh, interesting. Wasn’t aware they were handling it like that. Assumed it had been exorcised until the next FB.
Probably a non-event at best. At worst, maybe a signal that they want to consider something more drastic
It's something DavidC picked up on. He's posted about it on LI. If there's one thing he's been particularly useful for, its reading through parliamentary procedure papers obsessively like they were some sort of saucy novel.
It will never be removed. It's been running along fine in the public sector for years. It will come to the private sector like it or not.
It will always be a mess, as long as there is an incentive to use the CT + divis route instead of salary.
Simplest solution is to treat proprietary directors as sole traders. Class 4 NICs. Income tax. Treat divis as income, subject to full Income Tax. Works fine in Ireland.
It will always be a mess, as long as there is an incentive to use the CT + divis route instead of salary.
Simplest solution is to treat proprietary directors as sole traders. Class 4 NICs. Income tax. Treat divis as income, subject to full Income Tax. Works fine in Ireland.
I think there should be a means to identify whether divis came from the business you own and run, or pure investment.
Isn't this something accountants could verify (for those that have one)?
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't seem that difficult to me.
On your SATR you just put in one figure for dividends. If you say you're a director of a company, it 'should' be relatively simple to add another box to add in dividends earned from that position with the current box being used for any payout you get from retail shares.
Comment