Limited company and income shifting advice

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.

Grasser73 replied

9 July 2010, 06:34
Why not use the term 'profit sharing' which has an accepted meaning instead of 'income shifting' which doesn't?
Leave a comment:
drkash replied

8 July 2010, 20:15
Thanks to all for the advice.

I also don't think it would be likely they would be able to change the law and then make it retrospective - don't seem legal to me!!

Will go ahead with the income shifting, thanks again
Leave a comment:
SackmanandCo replied

5 July 2010, 09:13
crikey!

they simply dont have the resources to do what you fear.

they are much more risk profiled these days. this is in part probably why they are reviewing IR35-they have never had a lot of joy from it, so better for them to focus on other industries ie doctors, dentists, construction industry.
Leave a comment:
northernladuk replied

5 July 2010, 08:58
Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post

I would disagree slightly with wanderer - the worst that can happen is that you have to pay the tax that you evaded, plus interest, plus penalties.

Assuming that it's tax evasion that HMRC chase you for. There is no indication that HMRC will be any more sensible under this shower than the last lot.

And surely once they have their teeth in they will go over everything with a fine toothed comb this time and have you top of the list for another visit every few years after this as well.
Leave a comment:
malvolio replied

5 July 2010, 08:29
Originally posted by lje View Post

Why wouldn't they make it retrospective? They seem keen on doing that recently.

Following Arctic, any go at implementing income shifting (or a Family Business Tax... ) would be new legislation, which cannot be retrospective. The BN66 thing was (in HMG's eyes at least) a clarifying reinterpretation of existing legislation.
Leave a comment:
lje replied

5 July 2010, 08:24
Originally posted by SackmanandCo View Post

Highly unlikely that HMRC would make it retrospective.I dont think it is on the horizon in any case.

Why wouldn't they make it retrospective? They seem keen on doing that recently.
Leave a comment:
SackmanandCo replied

5 July 2010, 07:10
Highly unlikely that HMRC would make it retrospective.I dont think it is on the horizon in any case.
Leave a comment:
TheFaQQer replied

4 July 2010, 14:25
I would disagree slightly with wanderer - the worst that can happen is that you have to pay the tax that you evaded, plus interest, plus penalties.

Assuming that it's tax evasion that HMRC chase you for. There is no indication that HMRC will be any more sensible under this shower than the last lot.
Leave a comment:
Gonzo replied

3 July 2010, 23:47
I agree with Wanderer.

The accountant is probably being more cautious than is necessary now. HMRC don't like people doing this and it did look a certainty that the previous Government would close it down as an option, probably retrospectively too, hence the accountant's caution.

They never did and it remains perfectly legal.

That is a fantastically apposite nickname by the way.
Leave a comment:
Wanderer replied

3 July 2010, 22:24
Originally posted by drkash View Post

Can anyone please advise me if this would be ok and legal? Thanks

It's perfectly legal, though the HMRC don't like it and tried to stop it with the Artic Systems case (which they lost) and then the government announced that they were going to legislate against it (which they never did).

Some accountants recommend against it on the basis that the government may retrospectively change the law making you liable for the tax you avoided by income shifting. In my mind, the worst that would happen is that you would have to pay the tax you avoided paying by income splitting (which you would have had to pay anyway).
Leave a comment:
SackmanandCo replied

3 July 2010, 18:35
It is legal but has some risk that HMRC will challenge. My personal view is that income shifting is relatively low profile. HMRC have much bigger fish to fry.
Leave a comment:
drkash started a topic Limited company and income shifting advice

3 July 2010, 10:04
Limited company and income shifting advice

I would be grateful for some advice. I am working as an independent locum doctor and am looking at forming a limited company for all my income (probably for 1-2 years). I will be employing my wife as secretary with a small part time salary. She works full time with the council, but will be starting maternity leave in the coming months.

I am aware of the current legal loop hole with regards to income shifting. My accountant has advised me that I can include my wife as part of the limited company as a 50/50 shareholder (and so income shift the dividends). However another accountant has advised me against this as my wife does not contribute towards the income of the company (ie she does not work as a doctor).

Can anyone please advise me if this would be ok and legal? Thanks
Tags: None