Originally posted by SueEllen
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!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Consultation on companies excluded from the employment allowance"
Collapse
-
Correct. My point is that it's a big tangled mess where everyone keeps popping up with a "yes, but what about" comment. No surprise really as HMG/HMT seem to just layer new rules on top of old without figuring out what loopholes might then exist that completely negate a new rule.
-
I'm saving my wife claiming JSA, ergo leave it.Originally posted by mudskipper View PostYes, and this is why it's stupid.
I don't have a problem with not getting the relief - it was never meant for me.
But I think the scope of exclusion should be wider - it should apply to all directors and spouses regardless of company size. I don't like the discrimination against 1 person companies.
But I won't respond - it won't help me, and may remove the relief from other contractors who will continue to get it.
Although I will be amazed if it goes through in its current form.
Leave a comment:
-
I'd be surprised if this remains the case following the consultation, otherwise it will be addressed in a subsequent FB (since they have a habit of drafting crappy legislation that needs to be amended multiple times). As ms suggested, it would be quite easy to correct this and TBH it's only reasonable that they do.Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View PostThat's how I interpret it. More than one person on payroll = you can claim allowance.
Leave a comment:
-
100% agree. Claiming for YourCo is taking the pi55.Originally posted by Danglekt View PostI think that's fair enough - I understood it was designed to encourage business to take people on - if you don't and use it for yourself it's not really within the spirit of what was intended is it.
Just my 2p
Leave a comment:
-
That's how I interpret it. More than one person on payroll = you can claim allowance.Originally posted by DaveB View PostSo strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?
Leave a comment:
-
Nice while it lasted but probably fair enough.
Bigger fish to fry and all that.
Leave a comment:
-
My view (as someone who gets full benefit of the employment allowance) is that they should simply scrap the employment allowance. I'm so fed up of there being rules, with thresholds, then rules to offset those rules with amounts, then further rules to ensure the second rules only apply to cases where they want. IMHO remove the problem by removing the employment allowance.
Leave a comment:
-
Yes, and this is why it's stupid.Originally posted by DaveB View PostSo strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?
I don't have a problem with not getting the relief - it was never meant for me.
But I think the scope of exclusion should be wider - it should apply to all directors and spouses regardless of company size. I don't like the discrimination against 1 person companies.
But I won't respond - it won't help me, and may remove the relief from other contractors who will continue to get it.
Although I will be amazed if it goes through in its current form.
Leave a comment:
-
-
-
So strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?Originally posted by mudskipper View Posthttps://www.gov.uk/government/consu....ment-allowance
The Chancellor announced at Summer budget 2015 that, from April 2016, Employment Allowance would no longer be available to companies where the director is the sole employee. This is in order to focus the Employment Allowance on companies that support employment. This consultation seeks comments on the draft regulation to implement the new exclusion.Last edited by DaveB; 26 November 2015, 10:16.
Leave a comment:
-
I think that's fair enough - I understood it was designed to encourage business to take people on - if you don't and use it for yourself it's not really within the spirit of what was intended is it.
Just my 2p
Leave a comment:
-
Consultation on companies excluded from the employment allowance
https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ment-allowance
The Chancellor announced at Summer budget 2015 that, from April 2016, Employment Allowance would no longer be available to companies where the director is the sole employee. This is in order to focus the Employment Allowance on companies that support employment. This consultation seeks comments on the draft regulation to implement the new exclusion.Last edited by mudskipper; 26 November 2015, 12:22.Tags: None
- 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

Leave a comment: