• 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!

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.

Previously on "Consultation on companies excluded from the employment allowance"

Collapse

  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    She can only claim JSA for 6 months there as you can pay her for years.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    I'm saving my wife claiming JSA, ergo leave it.
    She can only claim JSA for 6 months there as you can pay her for years.

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    Yes, 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.
    I'm saving my wife claiming JSA, ergo leave it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    That's how I interpret it. More than one person on payroll = you can claim allowance.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by Danglekt View Post
    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
    100% agree. Claiming for YourCo is taking the pi55.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCyclingProgrammer
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    So strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?
    That's how I interpret it. More than one person on payroll = you can claim allowance.

    Leave a comment:


  • SussexSeagull
    replied
    Nice while it lasted but probably fair enough.

    Bigger fish to fry and all that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maslins
    replied
    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:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    So strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?
    Yes, 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:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    I get page not found
    Fixed.

    Leave a comment:


  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    replied
    Try this one https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ment-allowance

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    I get page not found

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    https://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.
    So strictly speaking, having the other half on the payroll even for a minimal salary, would mean your co. was still eligable?
    Last edited by DaveB; 26 November 2015, 10:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • Danglekt
    replied
    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.

Working...
X