The whole issue on married (or civil partnership) v not, is not one of legality in income splitting, but lack of protection.
S626 ITTOIA (successor provisions to S660) only exempts spouses or civil partners from settlements legilslation.
This doesn't stop unmarried splitting income, nor make it illegal, just you'll have to argue on first principles there is no settlement for it to be tax effective. Depends on how risk adverse tax payer is, but I would suggest income splitting between cohabitees is not uncommon, and dare I say it tolerated at present. As we know from the furore around Arctic systems, it can't be assumed thus will last.
- 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!
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 "Dividend Splitting - And subsequent benefit to me. Legal?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Cosmokramer View PostWell in my case I have decided to leave my cohabiting g/f out of the ltd co. Although she is down on the mortgage as a common law spouse.........
I think this is the less risky option.
Leave a comment:
-
Well in my case I have decided to leave my cohabiting g/f out of the ltd co. Although she is down on the mortgage as a common law spouse.........
I think this is the less risky option.
Leave a comment:
-
And of course, a lot of this income splitting stuff comes from the Arctic case where they were married thus setting a precedent if my understanding is correct. If you're not married, like in the Arctic case, then it leaves the way open for HMRC to come steaming in because its a different situation.
Leave a comment:
-
There is also the argument that a wife supports business owners with long days and many intangible elements so wouldn't be unreasonable they do support the company so can allow that but they have to draw the line somewhere. Once you start mentioning spouse, family and friends it just becomes so open to abuse it isn't worth considering. Many rules such of these can be very unfair to genuine people who, like myself for example, are not married by choice so cannot use them but relaxing the laws would then allow every man and his dog to use their retired parents who pay little or no tax. How do you allow my case but stop the retired parents situation? You just can't.
Probably not a point of law or something drives policy making but a difficult one to argue against.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SandyD View PostErrr but aren't they doing exactly that when they are transferring to the other half (not sure why other half here always happens to be a wife, not a husband)
Not arguing I understand its the law, but still the law is saying one can avoid tax in one case, but shouldn't avoid it in another.
I agree it's not fair, but that could be said for any rule that makes me personally worse off than someone else. But then there's bound to be other rules that work the other way. I don't have to wash anyone else's socks for example
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Clare@InTouch View PostThe whole point is to stop people transferring money to someone else with the sole purpose of using up that other persons tax band and therefore paying less tax. Anything you do that has "to avoid tax" as a main motivation generally has some type of anti-avoidance measure in place.
Not arguing I understand its the law, but still the law is saying one can avoid tax in one case, but shouldn't avoid it in another.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SandyD View PostI don't understand how giving divs to your married shareholder is OK while giving it to another relative is not.
The whole point is to stop people transferring money to someone else with the sole purpose of using up that other persons tax band and therefore paying less tax. Anything you do that has "to avoid tax" as a main motivation generally has some type of anti-avoidance measure in place.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JoJoGabor View PostNo, you have to be married, I spent a lot of time recently looking at this. What you do afterwards with the money isn't relevant
I don't however agree with JoJo's comment about it not being relevant afterwards. Where the comment is probably correct and will stand up to scrutiny I can't help feeling you have to be a little more clever about the situation and just don't make it look like the money is being blatantly directed in to your pocket. Am sure it wouldn't be hard to make it look like she is paying her fair share rather than it end up as your benefit. Maybe I am being anal but that is how I would do it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SandyD View PostWhat about making one of the children a shareholder (who is above legal age)?
Leave a comment:
-
What about making one of the children a shareholder (who is above legal age)?
Leave a comment:
-
As JoJo says above, there's an exemption if you're married but that doesn't extend to people who are merely living together. The income "shifted" to her would be seen as yours and taxed as if it had been yours.
The actual legislation is here if you're bored enough to read through it all: TSEM4000 - Settlements legislation: contents
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks for the response JoJo. Perhaps I should just forget it then and be 100% shareholder. Interesting though as my accountant doesn't have a problem with it and I do know of other contractors who are doing this.
Leave a comment:
-
No, you have to be married, I spent a lot of time recently looking at this. What you do afterwards with the money isn't relevant
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
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: