Originally posted by elsergiovolador
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!
Reply to: IR35 and Corporation Tax
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 "IR35 and Corporation Tax"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostIf the worker takes all the money and makes a loan to cover company liabilities, is that going to be viewed as a form of tax avoidance?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostIf the worker takes all the money and makes a loan to cover company liabilities, is that going to be viewed as a form of tax avoidance?
If the company chooses to pay the worker a higher salary than the deemed payment, whether out of a DL or out of retained funds, there will obviously be tax due (ERNI, EENI, IT) on that extra payment. Similarly if the company chooses to pay a dividend in excess of the deemed payment, there will be dividend tax due.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostThis is my reading of the example, and my understanding of HMRC's point of view:
The eeNic and Tax deductions made by the client are legally offsetable against the worker's tax and eeNIC liability. The erNic paid by the client is also legally offset against any salary payment the ltd co might make, related to this contract.
You seem to think because of this, it's the worker's money. That's wrong. The fee from the client is remitted to the ltdco, less the IR35 deductions. After that, any money paid by salary to the worker (from that company income) is paid gross.
I.e. company accounts look something like
Invoice £7200Receive £5400
Account for the £1200 VAT
Book £1400 against tax (paid for your company by the nice client, but from accounting perspective it's not far of them remitting to your company and then passing it on to HMRC)
Book £800 against eeNic (paid for your company)
The company can now pay the worker salary of up to £4200 without making any further deductions, and without accruing any employer NI liability.
At no point (until the company makes a salary payment) does any of the money belong to the worker.
There may well be other legal and accounting issues with HMRC's interpretation the money not being the company's is not one of them.
Leave a comment:
-
This is my reading of the example, and my understanding of HMRC's point of view:
The eeNic and Tax deductions made by the client are legally offsetable against the worker's tax and eeNIC liability. The erNic paid by the client is also legally offset against any salary payment the ltd co might make, related to this contract.
You seem to think because of this, it's the worker's money. That's wrong. The fee from the client is remitted to the ltdco, less the IR35 deductions. After that, any money paid by salary to the worker (from that company income) is paid gross.
I.e. company accounts look something like
Invoice £7200Receive £5400
Account for the £1200 VAT
Book £1400 against tax (paid for your company by the nice client, but from accounting perspective it's not far of them remitting to your company and then passing it on to HMRC)
Book £800 against eeNic (paid for your company)
The company can now pay the worker salary of up to £4200 without making any further deductions, and without accruing any employer NI liability.
At no point (until the company makes a salary payment) does any of the money belong to the worker.
There may well be other legal and accounting issues with HMRC's interpretation the money not being the company's is not one of them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View Postof course it can. It's just down to how it's accounted for in the book-keeping. I'm no an accountant hence I used DLA as an example of accounting, but it could be a capital investment.
The fact it's in HMRC's example should tell you something. Surely???? No????
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostI think the example is missing the fact that Rebecca's company is borrowing the remaining £1200 or something else that's why I posted my comment. I've been looking for quite some time and I can't find any legal text that would support the idea that LTD can grab any of this money without agreeing a loan with the director (except DLA). If a company has running costs and gets paid worker's salary, surely it cannot just take this money to cover its liabilities, but rather borrow it from the director and then pay it back from future profits?
The fact it's in HMRC's example should tell you something. Surely???? No????
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View Posterrrr..... cos that's the example you posted about.....
and the LTD does not need to make any tax deductions. But it may choose to not pay all of the money. That would be a bit daft IMO, but could be used to reduce a DLA for example.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostLTD is just passing money through. I would think that LTD cannot make any deductions from secondary employment wage. Why do you think LTD can get hold of any of it?
and the LTD does not need to make any tax deductions. But it may choose to not pay all of the money. That would be a bit daft IMO, but could be used to reduce a DLA for example.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View PostThey're not necessarily personal funds. You are assuming they are, as tax has been deducted at source. But that's a poor assumption and incorrect.
It would be easier to take it personally rather that via the LTD. but that's an option not mandatory.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostThis example doesn't raise any eyebrows? Rebecca receives £4200 as her salary, but draws only £3000 from the company. Isn't she misusing company account to keep personal funds? All the money (except VAT) from caught service is worker's personal money, so company cannot touch it unless the worker gives a loan to the company. What I am missing or the guidance hides inconvenient facts?
It would be easier to take it personally rather that via the LTD. but that's an option not mandatory.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mudskipper View PostHi Herts47
See here
Off-payroll working in the public sector: reform of the intermediaries legislation - technical note - GOV.UK
Particularly the 'Rebecca' example. Rebecca has been adding VAT and being paid to her ltd, which sounds like your situation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mudskipper View PostHi Herts47
See here
Off-payroll working in the public sector: reform of the intermediaries legislation - technical note - GOV.UK
Particularly the 'Rebecca' example. Rebecca has been adding VAT and being paid to her ltd, which sounds like your situation.
Thank you for this link. Rebecca is exactly the same situation as me with the exception that I didn't earn anything outside of IR35 for the company year, and I went to permanent employment somewhere else in March. It looks like the agency have done this correctly then as they have generated the invoice with VAT, taken VAT off to calculate my PAYE due, then added back into my payment on my payslip that's then paid to my Ltd company. My accountant has calculated VAT due each quarter which I've paid as normal. As I haven't earned anything else outside of IR35 or paid employment, I would not expect to incur any corporation tax. My accountant will need to make it clear that I have already paid PAYE on all my earnings into my business account and am therefore not liable for any more tax. Hopefully! Really helpful information and thank you.
Leave a comment:
- 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
- How to answer at interview, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ Today 09:59
- Business Asset Disposal Relief changes in April 2025: Q&A Yesterday 09:37
- How debt transfer rules will hit umbrella companies in 2026 Nov 12 09:28
- IT contractor demand floundering despite Autumn Budget 2024 Nov 11 09:30
- An IR35 bill of £19m for National Resources Wales may be just the tip of its iceberg Nov 7 09:20
- Micro-entity accounts: Overview, and how to file with HMRC Nov 6 09:27
- Will HMRC’s 9% interest rate bully you into submission? Nov 5 09:10
- Business Account with ANNA Money Nov 1 15:51
- Autumn Budget 2024: Reeves raids contractor take-home pay Oct 31 14:11
- How Autumn Budget 2024 affects homes, property and mortgages Oct 31 09:23
Leave a comment: