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
-
-
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:
-
Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View PostThat's how I interpret it. More than one person on payroll = you can claim allowance.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
-
-
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
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Even IT contractors connect with 'New Year, New Job.' But… Yesterday 09:28
- Which IT contractor skills will be top five in 2025? Jan 2 09:08
- Secondary NI threshold sinking to £5,000: a limited company director’s explainer Dec 24 09:51
- Reeves sets Spring Statement 2025 for March 26th Dec 23 09:18
- Spot the hidden contractor Dec 20 10:43
- Accounting for Contractors Dec 19 15:30
- Chartered Accountants with MarchMutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants with March Mutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants Dec 19 15:05
- Unfairly barred from contracting? Petrofac just paid the price Dec 19 09:43
Leave a comment: