xmas party CUK article incorrect?

[MrButton]

I noticed this article in the CUK email newsletter https://www.contractoruk.com/limited...150_or_75.html

It essentially is just a link to an old article https://www.contractoruk.com/limited...mas_party.html

It indicates in the examples that if a spouse is invited then their amount will come out of the directors £150 allowance.

In all of the examples given above, had John, Josh or Jeremy’s spouses also been directors of the same limited company then they too could claim the personal exemption. All three couples could in effect invite guests to make full use of their £150 per head exemption under the rules and not pay any tax or NIC.

This seems incorrect as everywhere else i've read that its £150 per person. So £300 for a sole director + spouse (guest)

There is even a link in the second article which links to https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0041134113.html

Alternatively, if you want to invite employees' partners, this remains tax free providing the total cost for the events does not exceed £150 per capita – where per capita is calculated on the basis of the number of total attendees either – i.e employees and their guests. Although only one guest per employee is permitted under these rules, that still means a potential tax-exempt benefit of up to £300 per employee.

Anyone know which is right? Maybe an admin can get one fixed.

[northernladuk]

It indicates in the examples that if a spouse is invited then their amount will come out of the directors £150 allowance.
.

??? It does? Not how I read it.

[MrButton]

Example 2: Josh invited his wife, Joan, to his limited company’s annual Christmas dinner at £85 per head. Although Joan is not an employee of Josh’s company, as his guest, Josh can put Joan’s cost per head exemption against his £150 allowance. Josh, however, has exceeded the maximum exemption allowance by £20 and, as he had not requested a reimbursement, he cannot claim back any of the expense of the party; in fact he is liable for Tax and NIC on the whole expense of £170. This is not a good outcome, as it is just like paying for the party twice!

^^^

[PerfectStorm]

??? It does? Not how I read it.

That's exactly what it says on all three examples.

[BrilloPad]

^^^

That's exactly what it says on all three examples.

??? It does? Not how I read it.

Have you asked your accountant?

[PerfectStorm]

Have you asked your accountant?

NLUK's not cut out to be a contractor, clearly.

[MrButton]

Have you asked your accountant?

Was planning to.

The point of the thread was more to point out the inconsistency so maybe it could be fixed.

[BrilloPad]

NLK's not cut out to be a contractor, clearly.

His above post was further evidence. I blame his wife.....

[northernladuk]

That's exactly what it says on all three examples.

Ah so it does. I just read the main body which stated.

The exemption also applies to employee’s or director’s guests: a guest includes a spouse, registered civil partner, children of the director or employee

I thought it read it applies to them so £150 for them as well..

although the paragraph below confuses issues.

The limit of £150 per director or employee (and guest as appropriate) includes VAT, so you must ensure that no more than £150 is spent.

hmmm...

[MrButton]

The article in question is from 2012 though.

No idea if this has changed since and the article hasn't been updated.