Wife cannot work - Mental Health Issues

Guest101

UKSBD wrote: »

Sorry, don't know how to multiquote on her so tried to make layout obvious below.


You say Absolute rubbish. You can employ someone to do no work whatsoever if you wish.


I would love to here what HMRC would say if the company just employed the directors wife, children, etc. but they weren't justifying a wage. - Nothing, as long as taxes were being paid. Why would HMRC care in the slightest? Shareholders might care, but I presume you are the sole owner. (or joint owners with your wife, so it makes no difference)


You say - You don't make HER redundant, you make the role redundant. The Equality act does not prevent this.


The role isn't being made redundant, I would have to do extra work, employ someone else, or the company wind back a little. - Any company, anywhere, can make a role redundant, not a human being. So therefore you cannot make her redundant.


There are 2 share holders (wife is share holder too)


You say the company has no fear of equality act if it made her redundant, what if it wasn't making her redundant but firing her (as that is probably more technically what this would have to be)? - WHY ARE YOU FIRING HER? It is possible to sack disabled people you know...




Do you see now why this has to be handled properly as a Company director? - It always needed to be handled properly (though im unclear if you are able to do this.)


I have no idea what benefits I have in mind, hence the question. - Someone else can advise on that


My wife becomes someone who is too ill to work does that mean she is technically nothing - Not in employment, not claiming?

Well yes, she would be unemployed. As she's not employed. (she would also be a business owner)

UKSBD

Guest101 wrote: »

Handle what? What is it you want to achieve?

Not really sure long term.


But presently it would make more sense if the Company just kept her in employment even if it would be tricky to justify paying her full wage.

Guest101

UKSBD wrote: »

Not really sure long term.


But presently it would make more sense if the Company just kept her in employment even if it would be tricky to justify paying her full wage.

Justify it to who?!


Seriously how do you not get this basic principle.


You can employ her to do whatever you want. Literally you can employ her to do nothing.

Darksparkle

Does she qualify for SSP?

https://www.gov.uk/statutory-sick-pay/eligibility

UKSBD

You say -

Guest101 wrote: »

Nothing, as long as taxes were being paid. Why would HMRC care in the slightest? Shareholders might care, but I presume you are the sole owner. (or joint owners with your wife, so it makes no difference)

Taxes aren't being paid though.


If a company employs the directors wife the wife has her tax allowance, the company avoids corporation tax.


You have to be able to justify the job or it could be seen as tax evasion

Guest101

UKSBD wrote: »

You say - Nothing, as long as taxes were being paid. Why would HMRC care in the slightest? Shareholders might care, but I presume you are the sole owner. (or joint owners with your wife, so it makes no difference)


Taxes aren't being paid though.


If a company employs the directors wife the wife has her tax allowance, the company avoids corporation tax.


You have to be able to justify the job or it could be seen as tax evasion

You are paying her taxes though. As in income tax, NIC.


Just to be clear, she's not the director wife, she's a part owner...

Darksparkle

UKSBD wrote: »

You say -


[/COLOR][/COLOR]


Taxes aren't being paid though.


If a company employs the directors wife the wife has her tax allowance, the company avoids corporation tax.


You have to be able to justify the job or it could be seen as tax evasion

But if she is off sick you can easily justify it because she will have a fit note.

Darksparkle

Guest101 wrote: »

You are paying her taxes though. As in income tax, NIC.

That assumes she is earning enough to pay that.

Guest101

Darksparkle wrote: »

That assumes she is earning enough to pay that.

True, but there's nothing wrong with putting someone on reduced duties

UKSBD

Guest101 wrote: »

Justify it to who?!


Seriously how do you not get this basic principle.


You can employ her to do whatever you want. Literally you can employ her to do nothing.

Wow!
that would be nice.
How do you not get the basic principle that a company paying the company directors wife for doing nothing isn't tax evasion?