Originally posted by Ovalteen
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!
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 "What are the advantages of paying more PAYE than is strictly necessary?"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Ovalteen View PostNot sure I would entirely agree with the advice above. Firstly it’s not in the public domain what triggers an IR35 investigation but we know its risk scoring. Low costs in relation to turnover and low salary would I imagine put you in a higher risk category. There is also the HMRC segmentation about to be published so it would be interesting to see what that says. But common sense if you were an HRMC inspector and under pressure to deliver yield and you had two limited companies on your desk both operating for 6 years. One salaries were 50% of turnover and one 5% which one would you choose?
They will try and dig until they find something if you trigger an investigation on any aspect of your business. Your best response is to involve someone i.e. a lawyer who knows what they are doing immediately.
Leave a comment:
-
Not sure I would entirely agree with the advice above. Firstly it’s not in the public domain what triggers an IR35 investigation but we know its risk scoring. Low costs in relation to turnover and low salary would I imagine put you in a higher risk category. There is also the HMRC segmentation about to be published so it would be interesting to see what that says. But common sense if you were an HRMC inspector and under pressure to deliver yield and you had two limited companies on your desk both operating for 6 years. One salaries were 50% of turnover and one 5% which one would you choose?
Leave a comment:
-
Interesting developments
There have been interesting developments on this, but the theory remains the same.
(1) Pay yourself a high salary = low risk (by this I mean if the tax office were to find you caught by IR35 any additional taxes payable would be low because you were paying them already);
(2) Pay yourself a low salary = high risk (for the opposite reason above).
If you are comfortable with your IR35 status, then choose a salary that best suits your circumstances. If you want to minimise tax and are comfortable about IR35 you should be looking at around the £7,000 per year mark. If you are advised you must pay at least the NMW ignore the advice - its wrong.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by aubergine View PostApologies if this has been asked countless times before (I'm sure it has) - feel free to point me to other relevant, up to date discussions.
I have had a few take home illustrations done by various accountants and they seem to vary in the balance of PAYE versus dividends they suggest I take. The illustrations that involve paying more PAYE than the minimum mean slightly less take home over the year (despite identical professional fees). I'm wondering why you would voluntarily opt to pay a little more in tax?
I can think of a couple of possible reasons:
- it affects your NIC in some way
- it reduces the likelihood of an HMRC investigation
Are either of these correct? Are you less likely to attract the attention of HMRC if you pay a bit more? Is there something I'm missing here?
Really appreciate any advice.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by centurian View PostIt's not like HMRC will say "ah, bless him, he paid some of the tax he should have - let's let him off the rest"
Leave a comment:
-
WHS
It's not like HMRC will say "ah, bless him, he paid some of the tax he should have - let's let him off the rest"
Leave a comment:
-
If you opt to pay a little more in tax then yes you pay more NIC, as does your company. The level of contributions you make can impact on what benefits you might qulify for.
It does NOT reduce the likelihood of an HMRC investigation
Leave a comment:
-
What are the advantages of paying more PAYE than is strictly necessary?
Apologies if this has been asked countless times before (I'm sure it has) - feel free to point me to other relevant, up to date discussions.
I have had a few take home illustrations done by various accountants and they seem to vary in the balance of PAYE versus dividends they suggest I take. The illustrations that involve paying more PAYE than the minimum mean slightly less take home over the year (despite identical professional fees). I'm wondering why you would voluntarily opt to pay a little more in tax?
I can think of a couple of possible reasons:
- it affects your NIC in some way
- it reduces the likelihood of an HMRC investigation
Are either of these correct? Are you less likely to attract the attention of HMRC if you pay a bit more? Is there something I'm missing here?
Really appreciate any advice.Tags: None
- 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: