Reply to: Adding Spouse to the Company

[eek]

If you're going to make your spouse a 50% shareholder, you might want to make her a company secretary or director too otherwise she won't be eligible for ER on her share of the capital distribution when you one day shut the company down and will have some extra CGT to pay.

Or you change the holdings prior to closure

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

If you're going to make your spouse a 50% shareholder, you might want to make her a company secretary or director too otherwise she won't be eligible for ER on her share of the capital distribution when you one day shut the company down and will have some extra CGT to pay.

[GlenW]

My wife is my company's secretary, tax benefits make it worth doing but the role play sex is brilliant as well.

[VectraMan]

That argument leads to the FLC and all the pain that will create.

Free Loading Contractor?

[eek]

There's no risk with a contractor "business" other than the fact the breadwinner might not bring home the bacon, and that applies equally to anyone married to a permie. Unless the spouse is genuinely contributing then it's entirely artificial. Whether it's wrong is a different argument, though you could argue it amounts to a tax on being single.

That argument leads to the FLC and all the pain that will create.

[VectraMan]

It's not artifically lowering the tax burden as confirmed by https://www.ipse.co.uk/ipse-tax-vict...in-house-lords . Sharing the profits of a company with your spouse is perfectly acceptable as they share the risk of the enterprise.

Granted there is minimal real risk and many spouses will earn enough to make not worthwhile but its not artificial and definitely not aggressive (in fact it's little different from deciding in whose names the savings are in)..

There's no risk with a contractor "business" other than the fact the breadwinner might not bring home the bacon, and that applies equally to anyone married to a permie. Unless the spouse is genuinely contributing then it's entirely artificial. Whether it's wrong is a different argument, though you could argue it amounts to a tax on being single.

[d000hg]

Depends what the OP means, really - my wife is a modest shareholder because, frankly, she took much as much risk as me in this endeavour and I wanted to make sure she got some direct rewards out of it.

Wasn't (isn't?) being married to you reward enough?

[BrilloPad]

Hmm weirdly enough I can't quite eeks post but yeah you are right and wouldn't argue that point. Just narks me off when people have the attitude they just want to do it as a pure tax move. Pay her and give divs just because someone told them they can. There is more to it than that. Just like to play devil's advocate.


And I can't do it so I'm sulking.

You think tax avoidance is not a good motive? You muppet. I bet you have no ISAs either?

On the other hand celebrate being single! What happened to NLYUK?

[eek]

Hmm weirdly enough I can't quite eeks post but yeah you are right and wouldn't argue that point. Just narks me off when people have the attitude they just want to do it as a pure tax move. Pay her and give divs just because someone told them they can. There is more to it than that. Just like to play devil's advocate.


And I can't do it so I'm sulking.

I think I covered that bit in "many spouses will earn enough to not make it worthwhile". Even if we ignore the fact you ain't married your other half earns too much anyway...

[northernladuk]

Hmm weirdly enough I can't quite eeks post but yeah you are right and wouldn't argue that point. Just narks me off when people have the attitude they just want to do it as a pure tax move. Pay her and give divs just because someone told them they can. There is more to it than that. Just like to play devil's advocate.


And I can't do it so I'm sulking.

[eek]

Making a change to your business to artificially lower your tax burden with no business requirement is aggressive tax avoidance... but many do though so fill your boots. Just make sure you do it right.

And do a bit of bloody basic research before asking questions

It's not artifically lowering the tax burden as confirmed by https://www.ipse.co.uk/ipse-tax-vict...in-house-lords . Sharing the profits of a company with your spouse is perfectly acceptable as they share the risk of the enterprise.

Granted there is minimal real risk and many spouses will earn enough to make not worthwhile but its not artificial and definitely not aggressive (in fact it's little different from deciding in whose names the savings are in)..

There isn't many things I would argue with you on but this is one where we will just have to agree to disagree...

[nikos101]

Making a change to your business to artificially lower your tax burden with no business requirement is aggressive tax avoidance... but many do though so fill your boots. Just make sure you do it right.

And do a bit of bloody basic research before asking questions

No

[OwlHoot]

Making a change to your business to artificially lower your tax burden with no business requirement is aggressive tax avoidance... but many do though so fill your boots. Just make sure you do it right.

WHS

And do a bit of bloody basic research before asking questions

Another one for the NLUK comment generator

[vwdan]

Are there people who don't do this?

Depends what the OP means, really - my wife is a modest shareholder because, frankly, she took much as much risk as me in this endeavour and I wanted to make sure she got some direct rewards out of it.

[northernladuk]

Making a change to your business to artificially lower your tax burden with no business requirement is aggressive tax avoidance... but many do though so fill your boots. Just make sure you do it right.

And do a bit of bloody basic research before asking questions