Reply to: Employment Allowance, To Claim, Or Not To Claim...

[WordIsBond]

I gave him the benefit of the doubt on those.

Very gracious of you, you're probably a nicer person than me.

(Let's see, 6 out of 7200, that's 1 in 1200. Yeah, you're gracious. )

[northernladuk]

My advice is not to bother, you'll never keep up. He added six since you wrote this. I haven't bothered to check if any of those six are not worth reporting, but I suspect most aren't worth discussing.

Of course, if you think my advice on this point is incorrect, I advise you to report and/or discuss it.

His post count hasn't gone up. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on those.

Nicely colour highlighted sir. Me likey.

[WordIsBond]

So please do continue to report and discuss any incorrect advice that is given and we will take the appropriate action.

Can I report 7225 of PC's posts in one report or do I have to do them all one at a time?

My advice is not to bother, you'll never keep up. He added six since you wrote this. I haven't bothered to check if any of those six are not worth reporting, but I suspect most aren't worth discussing.

Of course, if you think my advice on this point is incorrect, I advise you to report and/or discuss it.

[WordIsBond]

Are you the one who is going take it to Tribunal to test the payment under the primary threshold for the second director/employee?

Oh. Are you going to Tribunal to back up the "advice" you've been giving here?

At least I've been basing my statements on the actual legislation, rather than on sources that obviously don't match what it says. Carry on, though.

[SueEllen]

Can I report 7225 of PC's posts in one report or do I have to do them all one at a time?

PC isn't an accountant, debt collector, umbrella company owner or agent so he, like you and I, can post what tulip he wants.

[northernladuk]

So please do continue to report and discuss any incorrect advice that is given and we will take the appropriate action.

Can I report 7225 of PC's posts in one report or do I have to do them all one at a time?

[administrator]

You link is to the HMRC "guidance", which isn't always a reliable source.

Anyway, when are you changing your user name so we can see who you work for?

My fault. Been away to see the sickly in-laws while the kids on holiday, work has piled up a little to say the least

Username has now been updated. I was asked to do this yesterday, when the ban auto-expired I guess.

I have stated this to John (the accountant formerly known as UK Contractor Accountant) and will state it here too. We rely on the advice that the accountants and other service providers give on the forum. If any service provider is found to be repeatedly incorrect then we cannot keep allowing that person to post on the forum. So please do continue to report and discuss any incorrect advice that is given and we will take the appropriate action.

[TheFaQQer]

of course I got it right - all links I posted are correct and to the point.

You link is to the HMRC "guidance", which isn't always a reliable source.

Anyway, when are you changing your user name so we can see who you work for?

[john@UKCA]

[QUOTE=WordIsBond;2235159]LOL. Can't come soon enough.

This time, at least he/she/it cited a somewhat official source, but as Martin noted, it's wrong. UKCA can't even get it right when they try.
/QUOTE]

of course I got it right - all links I posted are correct and to the point.

Are you the one who is going take it to Tribunal to test the payment under the primary threshold for the second director/employee? Laugh my head off.

[WordIsBond]

Someone's angling for a permaban

"ukcontractoraccountant

Who has been invited to change his ID to name his employer. Doing this will lift his 7 day ban.

This will also prevent a Permaban."

LOL. Can't come soon enough.

This time, at least he/she/it cited a somewhat official source, but as Martin noted, it's wrong. UKCA can't even get it right when they try.

Thanks, Martin, for the AccountingWeb link, it answered my question about the secondary contributor language. You don't have to pay a second employee up to the threshold, despite what the HMRC guidance says, the legislation itself says otherwise. It's all pretty clear.

Every contractor who pays someone else a salary can claim this. Nobody should count on being able to do so a year from now, because chances are they'll tighten it up further, and complain that people were just getting around it and how terrible the tax avoiders were. When in fact, they were just extremely neglectful in how they worded the legislation. For now, if you are eligible, fill yer boots, and if your accountant talks about connected parties and such, tell them to advise you based on what the legislation says today rather than what they think it might say next year.

[TheFaQQer]

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...loyer-guidance

Someone's angling for a permaban

"ukcontractoraccountant

Who has been invited to change his ID to name his employer. Doing this will lift his 7 day ban.

This will also prevent a Permaban."

[ContrataxLtd]

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...loyer-guidance

We can all post links all day long, here's one on AccountingWeb discussing the employment allowance at length - Employment allowance | AccountingWEB

Personally, I think the link you've posted is useless at best because as is normally the case with HMRC their guidance doesn't actually match what the legislation says, in particular this:

The decisive factor is that the additional employee(s) must be paid above the Secondary Threshold (£156 in the tax year 2016 to 2017).

All in my opinion of course but is it really worth messing around to save at most £235?

Martin
Contratax Ltd

[john@UKCA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...loyer-guidance

[WordIsBond]

Thanks for the explanation. But if it were me, I'd send this link and ask if this has been enacted or not, and if legislation.gov.uk is not reliable.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0160344_en.pdf

Are they waiting for the TIIN? Because it's the legislation, not the TIIN, that is determinative, and to rely on the TIIN is just being lazy. And the legislation itself says nothing about connected parties.

[DaveB]

So I've had an email back from my Accountants about this, explaining why they recommended not claiming it.

Apparently the full text of the legislation is not yet available and it may be a case that spouses are counted as connected partied and so are ineligible.

They are in correspondance with HMRC for clarification. It may be that once it is clarified that it can be applied later in the year and salaries etc adjusted as required.