Wife cannot work - Mental Health Issues

Darksparkle

UKSBD wrote: »

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?

To be fair, if the company was paying your wife say £20,000 and she was paying income tax and NIC and the company was paying employer NIC, HMRC are unlikely to care. If they said it wasn't genuine employment and you had to pay CT on it, then the income tax and NIC would need to be reimbursed.

UKSBD

Darksparkle wrote: »

To be fair, if the company was paying your wife say £20,000 and she was paying income tax and NIC and the company was paying employer NIC, HMRC are unlikely to care. If they said it wasn't genuine employment and you had to pay CT on it, then the income tax and NIC would need to be reimbursed.

Even if the company was paying her £20,000 there is still her allowance to take in to consideration.

Darksparkle

UKSBD wrote: »

Even if the company was paying her £20,000 there is still her allowance to take in to consideration.

Yes but HMRC want to focus on genuine evasion that brings in money.

Income Tax plus NIC (employee and employer) on £20,000 is nearly £5000. If the CT would be about the same (or less) then not much point of them pursuing it.

Guest101

UKSBD wrote: »

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?

Joint owner / Part owner.

merlin68

All benefit claims require a face to face at some point.
Unless you can try to get a home visit.

HappyMJ

UKSBD wrote: »

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?

I better report myself then to the HMRC. I used to employ my partner to do nothing. If it was this tax year I'd pay both of us a salary of £8,060 each per year. £155 per week. There's no tax or national insurance contributions to pay on that amount of salary.

UKSBD

Darksparkle wrote: »

Yes but HMRC want to focus on genuine evasion that brings in money.

Income Tax plus NIC (employee and employer) on £20,000 is nearly £5000. If the CT would be about the same (or less) then not much point of them pursuing it.

Her wages are approx. £8,500


£8,500 company doesn't pay corporation tax on, approx. £1700 a year corporation tax saving a year.


Guest101 said "Absolute rubbish. You can employ someone to do no work whatsoever if you wish."


Does that mean I can employ my daughter and my son, pay them £10k each and avoid £4k of corporation tax?

McKneff

If your company is doing well, why not just let her resign, and just let her be like thousands of others and just be a stay at home mum, earning nothing.
Why do benefits have to come into it at all. just let her help out where she can. As a favour to her husband. Seems simple enought o me x

You seem to be making it very complicated.

Guest101

UKSBD wrote: »

Her wages are approx. £8,500


£8,500 company doesn't pay corporation tax on, approx. £1700 a year corporation tax saving a year.


Guest101 said "Absolute rubbish. You can employ someone to do no work whatsoever if you wish."


Does that mean I can employ my daughter and my son, pay them £10k each and avoid £4k of corporation tax?

How old are your children?

Darksparkle

UKSBD wrote: »

Her wages are approx. £8,500


£8,500 company doesn't pay corporation tax on, approx. £1700 a year corporation tax saving a year.


Guest101 said "Absolute rubbish. You can employ someone to do no work whatsoever if you wish."


Does that mean I can employ my daughter and my son, pay them £10k each and avoid £4k of corporation tax?

So a wage of £8500 is approx £163 a week. So that would allow entitlement to SSP. So if she got a fit note confirming she isn't fit to work the company can choose to either pay her SSP for 28 weeks or occupation sick pay at a higher rate if they wish.

As she is eligible for SSP, she cannot claim ESA unless you dismiss her. It wouldnt be redundancy because it is her that is no longer available to work rather than the job no longer being there.