Reply to: National Minimum Wage or £97 pw?

[ab9132]

Do shove off. You are so boring and you can't read much less remember what I wrote.

It's pointless keeping up this charade.

I always thought you werent really equipped with the experience or business acumen to back up what your saying. If all esle fails revert yet again to petty insults.

You run along now and keep trying to convince yourself your in business of your own right. The rest of us who really are will concentrate on winning the business, you can dream up your next crackpot scheme to avoid an investigation.

You never know, once your vast wealth runs out you might get off your high horse and realise that maybe your attitude is the reason for your failing business model.

Move along people, nothing to see here.

[ab9132]

Well you obviously took me seriously enough to post, didn't you!

No I haven't had a limited that long but I have been in business for several years. Or doesn't being a sole trader carry any weight with you?

Yes it does carry weight with me, congratulations. My point is you have very little experience of actually running a business, yet you spout untruths as if fact.

Most of the advice I post on here is a combo of my own judgement and that of tax and other specialists I have spoken to. So I am not talking out of my backside at all. Far from it.

Oh! Let's not forget that I've been involved in consultations and published on the subject of EBs in national newspapers and business magazines going back to the mid 90s.

Excellent, well done. Large orange?

Oh! I noted your boast about having two employees. Presumably, then, you see having a number of employees as some sort of status hike over us OMB oneabe's. My advice, and this forum, is for one-a-be's not for acorns - for which the advice is totally irrelevant. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would stick your nose out of this forum and go and play patacake on some SME forum somewhere else.

My "boast" was merely to point out that I was not a bum on seat contractor using a limited company for tax evasion as you suggested.

Whilst we are on the subject of bum on seat contractors, what is your problem with them? I started out like this and there is nothing wrong with it. It gives you the opportunity to build up a financial buffer to take the next step in whatever dierction you so desire.

I expect, all told, I have far more 'knowledge rich' experience on one-a-be contractual issues than you've had hot dinners. Probably because I'm rich enough from my last contract not to need to constantly be in work so have more time to read and research - a point which you are also trying to be snide about as well.

Really? My Dad's bigger than your Dad.

You know nothing about why I am not in work at the moment, so I would appreciate it if you would keep your ignorance to yourself - which in only one or two posts you have embarassingly displayed like a peacock spanning it's plumage

You are correct, I only know what you have posted about how you work.
You have however displayed over several posts over a number of weeks/months that you have very very little experience of running a business.

You have dismissed the opinion of qualified accountants of many years as their opinion does not match your own.

You have accused more than one of us of tax evasion.

In summary you are like an angry petulant child should somebody have the audacity to disagree with the self appointed oracle.

You threatened to leave this forum a few weeks ago, what a shame you decided to return...

[Bluebird]

Fight, Fight, Fight...

[ab9132]

Why don't you go EBT - you'd save yourself heaps of tax and no bother of running a limited either.

I'm flattered that it took one of my posts for you to be a brave boy and post on here. Are you as brave in the business world, I wonder?

I'm quite happy as I am thank you. I have two employees to think of not just myself.

Please come back and advise me how to run my business when/if you ever do secure a second contract or any direct work.

I'm glad your flattered, hopefully my comments will inspire you to get yourself some work.

[ab9132]

Who said I was worried? I've never been a bum on seater - my field doesn't lend itself to 2 year, 2 a penny contracts without a break. I have to do a lot of legwork to get the contact and leads I need from new clients, and I always follow through with a solid outside ir35 contract that is miles away from inclusion as you could possibly get. I'm not even in IT.

Can't someone have a viewpoint on here that doesn't allude to greed, ignorance and bigotted right wing thinking that drags everyone into a cesspit of higher taxes eventually?

You've only been a limited company for a year with one contract if I understand your post in another thread.

I have no problem with you having a different viewpoint. I do have a problem with you advising people new to running a company to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to and telling them to ignore the advice of experts in the taxation/accounting field.

Maybe I'd take you a little more seriously if you actually had some experience.

[Denny]

This nonsense of a moral obligation to pay unecessary amounts of tax/ni finally prompted me to post something.

[removed]

[ASB]

Exactly. But there is one other point that needs to come into the eqation - today's moral stance, is tomorrow's legal stance.

A good point. Look at how governments can manipulate based on apparant climate change. Equally it can use the parliament act to force thorough legislation to allow the buggering of young boys. A strange moral stance in my mind.

If people behaved morally in the first place, instead of being so greedy, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

Perhaps. I rather imagine we'd just be in a different one. If you wish to equate greed with acting within a societal framework then so be it. I do think, however, that if the government had legislated in a more sensible manner, we probably wouldn't be in this mess either.

Your idea of moral and mine are different. I expect everybody else is too. In my view it is perfectly OK to act within societys legal framework - even when it is things I do not personally approve of.

[ab9132]

You don't know Denny very well mate!

Fortunatley your right, but I have read this site for a long time without posting, so I am reasonably aware of Denny.

This nonsense of a moral obligation to pay unecessary amounts of tax/ni finally prompted me to post something.

[Burdock]

I suspect you are the one avoiding tax by not being outside of IR35 and are looking for some glimer of hope to reduce the chance of an investigation.

You don't know Denny very well mate!

[ab9132]

I would go back to lurking, if I were you.

Try telling the iR that the business is not being used for tax avoidance. Why do you think Ir35 was introduced in the first place - just for the fun of it?

I operate outside of IR35, so would have no problem telling the IR exactly that.

If you genuinley operate outside of IR35, what are you worried about?

I suspect you are the one avoiding tax by not being outside of IR35 and are looking for some glimer of hope to reduce the chance of an investigation.

[Lewis]

Ok, I have got a reply from QDOS.

They say their underwriters consider contractors who pay themselves very small salaries (below the National Minimum Wage) to be at much higher risk of enquiry than someone who pays themselves a salary of at least the National
Minimum Wage.

Obviously this is their opinion and others can disagree. I mention it only so people can make an informed decision for themselves.

[Chugnut]

Come on folks. Why does everyone get so bent out of shape justifying how they remunerate themselves? Take advice from multiple sources (HMRC, QDOS, SJD, PCG, etc.), and make your decisions accordingly. Pay little attention to scaremongering and contrived spin. What sits well with you may not with the next person. I'm married, with a young son, and a wife who works part time. My salary level is dictated by a huge number of factors, and strangely enough, they'll be different than yours.

There's a lot of grey areas facing us at the moment - S660, IR35, and MSC's for starters. As we've seen in Arctic, IR35 cases, and dubious press releases slamming the use of limited companies, etc., an awful lot comes down to interpretation by one party over another. If you have shown that you have attempted to make yourself aware of the areas that involve you, and taken guidance from experts in a field where you are unsure, you've covered all the bases you can reasonably be expected to, haven't you?

I have chosen a structure I feel is fair and defensible. Do the same, back it up with 3rd parties where you think you need to, have a Coke and a smile, and sleep well.

Chugnut out.

[THEPUMA]

If the government wants to make the system "fairer" it needs to remove the smaller companies rate of CT.

Within a couple of years we will have a 22% CT rate for small companies and 28% for large companies. Many commentators believe that this is paving the way for a flat rate of 25% before too long.

[ASB]

I will re-iterate that, be very careful of accusing me of doing anything illegal...tax avoidance is clasified as money laundering these days so pretty serious...accusing me of a serious offence in print is not very smart

Nope. Avoidance is still an intellectual persuit. Although it is much more frowned upon these days than previously of course.

Denny does however make some valid points. However they are purely based upon a moral not legal view. Essentially her argument seems to go "because I think this is what the framework of legislation intended then this is how people should behave".

Over the last 25 odd years there have been a number of interesting pieces of legislation aimed at close companies. There was, for example, the investment income surchage. An extra 15% tax on dividends from close companies. The deemed distribution rule. Here if you didn't pay all remaining profit as a dividend you got taxed as though you did (very expensive to retain funds and grow in that environment).

From a personal perspective I do think that paying NI threshold only and divis is taking the mick a bit. However for the entire time I was contracting I used the system legally and legitimately to my advantage. It is not my job to make the system "right". Only to act within it.

If the government wants to make the system "fairer" it needs to remove the smaller companies rate of CT.

From personal experience of investigation there was absolutely no question at all in the inspectors mind that minimal/no salary (it used to be most efficient to pay no salary on voluntary NI but isn't now) was OK.

It may well increase the chances of investigation, but it's not going to affect the outcome.

[Vito]

Right first post, normally just lurk reading the forums.

He/she became the forum cop when you accused him/her of running their company just for tax avoidance reasons.

Paying a low salary/high dvis is tax efficient NOT avoidance. You have thereofere overstepped the mark tossing accusations like this around.

And for the record my accountant, a high street accountant recommends I pay myself £94 a week.

Thanks AB...I'm the same as you...following advice from a respected accountant used by many on here...

Denny - I have not become the forum cop...I was responding as an individual saying that you have overstepped a personal mark...and I will re-iterate that, be very careful of accusing me of doing anything illegal...tax avoidance is clasified as money laundering these days so pretty serious...accusing me of a serious offence in print is not very smart...I don't wish to get into a personal battle so I will step out of this thread now, but please give careful thought to the way in which you phrase things in future, particularly if aimed at me.

This is a discussion board and it is fine to disagree with others...the arguements are often both valid, constructive and most of the time amusing (as they are mostly meant in a good natured way with a smile on face) but accusations of illegal practice aimed at others goes too far.