Originally posted by d000hg
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: Paying wife salary as well as dividends
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 "Paying wife salary as well as dividends"
Collapse
-
That would be legit but you realise dividends have to be split evenly per-share, so if one person is on £250/day and another on £500 you're a bit stuffed.
Leave a comment:
-
turning this on its head, what is there to stop say a group of contractors wives getting together, forming a ltd company (called contractors are not us) and then charging their hubbies out at £300-500 a day on a consultancy basis. The ladies who set up said company will do what most small software business owners do.. nothing but pretend to be in meetings. If they are ladies who lunch it would suit them perfectly.
The guys can go to work and get paid a small salary. Say ££15k a year. Wife meanwhile can act as pimp looking for better gigs for you to go to. They can say "Ive got a memeber of staff available to do your s%*t for loads of wonga. Want me to send him over for a chat about how we can help?".
As registerd owners of said comanies it would be unfair to tell them they arent entitled to take money out as dividend. In fact most small business owners i know (aka proper trading businesses) the owners dont do much work these days, they employ people to do that, and pop their head in occasionally to make sure people are on time and not spending too long in the net. One guy i know is semi retired now and only pops in about 2 days a week and thats only for a couple of hours.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostI don't think 'incorrect' is the right term. I do agree you can per her for doing nothing but as I said come investigation you are on the backfoot to prove you are not just avoiding tax. You have to prove that you are paying her for nothing and not that you are paying her to avoid tax and in the situation they are trying to prove the latter, which is in fact the same thing so it won't work.... You then further elaborate to make my point so I actually think we are on the same page overall.
If contractors pay their wives to reduce tax and she does f all, fair enough, you can do that, no arguments from me but when HMRC comes in....
HMRC : What does your wife do for 8k a year?
Me : Books, jobfinding, paperwork
HMRC : Show me
Me : Well she hasn't done anything.
HMRC : Pants down and bend over son.
You can pay someone nothing for doing a role that is fine but if that role doesn't actually exist and is manufactured avoid tax you are in trouble. I can't see how HMRC can't recategorise that? What is possible is great, what you can get away with is different surely?
Also forgetting the theory the reality we are talking about is contractors paying their wives to avoid tax... it's why they do it so it is tax avoidance, you are just leaving it up to HMRC to try prove it relying on a bit of theory to get awy with it. Not a position I would like be in.
This is exactly the sort of non-legislative subtle chipping away at private transactions that HMRC want to perform to drag people into their fantasy admin-centric totalitarian world view. You can actually move people a long way down a path this way without actually having legal right to do so.
Its called anchoring and is a great way to make sure all discussion is then pivoted around the initial framing no matter how invalid that may be.
You can frame almost anything as to do with Tax avoidance - its like national security and lets you get away with pretty much anything. Its like the crackdown on 'legal but aggressive tax avoidance', what the F*** is that. Its either legal or its not, but no HMRC frames it like that and the argument is theirs all the way.
Leave a comment:
-
Derek Conway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Conway employed his son Freddie as a part-time researcher, while Freddie was on a full-time degree course at the University of Newcastle. Conway paid his son the part-time equivalent of a £25,970 salary, amounting to a sum in excess of £40,000[6] over three years, including pension contributions.
...
After an investigation, in January 2008 the Committee found there was "no record" of what work Freddie had done
...
They recommended that the House order him to repay a sum of £13,000"
So it would seem HMRC consider £27,000 reasonable for doing nothing.Last edited by Lewis; 31 August 2012, 15:19.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostForget that I got the link working but i can only read the comments. Might register as that looks interesting.
Just to note though every example given in the comments the wife played an active part in the business........
The point I was making was simply that you can pay any salary you want to anybody. HMRC are not really able to attack the actual payment as such. What they can do is challenge whether that salary is for business purposes. If they do this successfully you would actually be in a worse position than had the salary not been paid in the first place, it would lead to a CT bill on the salary in addition to any payroll taxes deducted.
Incorrect probably was a poor choice of word. You can pay somebody a salary even if it is blatant avoidance, it's just that you won't actually achieve the avoidance in the event of a challenge.
Leave a comment:
-
Forget that I got the link working but i can only read the comments. Might register as that looks interesting.
Just to note though every example given in the comments the wife played an active part in the business........
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ASB View PostI'm pretty sure that is actually incorrect. Truly you can pay anyone however much you want for doing anything (something or nothing). I don't believe HMRC have the power to recategorise in any way - save for potentially applying the settlements legislation (perhaps Greg or similar could confirm or refute this).
BUT this doesn't mean that the avoidance will necessarily be achieved. HMRC do have the power to determine it was not wholly for business purposes. In this case the employee deduction will have been made in the form of IT and NICs, however it would not qualify as a deduction for CT purposes thus it would ALSO be subject to CT.
For the terminally bored I looked up a couple of threads to find some relevant cases. Disallowing "the wife
If contractors pay their wives to reduce tax and she does f all, fair enough, you can do that, no arguments from me but when HMRC comes in....
HMRC : What does your wife do for 8k a year?
Me : Books, jobfinding, paperwork
HMRC : Show me
Me : Well she hasn't done anything.
HMRC : Pants down and bend over son.
You can pay someone nothing for doing a role that is fine but if that role doesn't actually exist and is manufactured avoid tax you are in trouble. I can't see how HMRC can't recategorise that? What is possible is great, what you can get away with is different surely?
Also forgetting the theory the reality we are talking about is contractors paying their wives to avoid tax... it's why they do it so it is tax avoidance, you are just leaving it up to HMRC to try prove it relying on a bit of theory to get awy with it. Not a position I would like be in.
Now... if you did put some effort in to it and had something to demostrate she even knew what she was doing it and maybe even some evidence then yes, much stronger position. You might even get away with tax avoidance in that case. I just don't think many people do.
I can't view that link by the way, keeps locking my system up. Can you post the URL so I can try copy it?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostAs I say great point, you can pay someone for doing nothing, but not if it at risk of being a blatent avoidance technique...
BUT this doesn't mean that the avoidance will necessarily be achieved. HMRC do have the power to determine it was not wholly for business purposes. In this case the employee deduction will have been made in the form of IT and NICs, however it would not qualify as a deduction for CT purposes thus it would ALSO be subject to CT.
For the terminally bored I looked up a couple of threads to find some relevant cases. Disallowing "the wife
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mudskipper View PostThe salary thing is interesting.
If I'm benched for a year, does this mean I shouldn't draw a salary for that year as I'm not actually doing any work?
(Hypothetical question)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostLoads of people keep paying mine!!!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ready_to_leave View Postgood stuff.
Now... r-t-l's point is terrific from one side but consider the other. HMRC are coming investigating. They need proof or due diligence to be happy so you are on the defensive and have to prove it. The worker shows his role profile and other work he did even though he was standing with a coffee when the inspector called. If you pay your wife 8k.. it has to be for something.. not to you maybe but to the guy coming investigating. If you cannot prove this then you will be caught bang to rights avoiding tax.
As I say great point, you can pay someone for doing nothing, but not if it at risk of being a blatent avoidance technique... and lets be honest here, that is what 90% of pay my wife set ups are, and HMRC know it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mudskipper View PostThe salary thing is interesting.
If I'm benched for a year, does this mean I shouldn't draw a salary for that year as I'm not actually doing any work?
(Hypothetical question)
Who decides what is appropriate? Does Bob Diamond justify £25 million a year in total comp?. Does HMRC step in and demand time sheets and demand evidence that this rate is justified.
Do I demand that HMRC provide me evidence that their middle managers work justifies their take home salary.
It is entirely up to the two parties as to what rates are payable, its called a free market.
This allowed pay for an amount of work is a load of old horse manure. The market rate as you can readily see from contracting and salary negotiation is what someone will pay, and if they want to pay £500 to get their windows cleaned or have a haircut, then that is the rate that is appropriate for that transaction.
The alternative is what? state sanctioned rates for activities. Some notional 'market rate' is fantasy as even similar roles in contracting can vary between £200/day and £1000/day depending on the industry for essentially very similar activities.
Its a meme put about by HMRC who do not like this at all and wish that the state set all rates and each transaction was taxed to the hilt. Otherwise they are constantly worried that someone is "getting away without paying their fair share". The sole purpose of this meme is force people to think that they have to justify the level of work done. If you find yourself agreeing you should stop and consider if you are buying into this propaganda position of socialism.
Leave a comment:
-
The salary thing is interesting.
If I'm benched for a year, does this mean I shouldn't draw a salary for that year as I'm not actually doing any work?
(Hypothetical question)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sausage Surprise View PostWhy pay her anything??
I don't pay mine.
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: