Discussion
But that is the whole point. The IR have radically changed the financial landscape without any new legislation, case law or indeed warning. That's what is so frightening about it. At least with IR35 we saw it coming, but this is outrageous. And because it is not new legislation there is NOTHING that prevents them hitting you with up to 7 years (I think it is) back taxes and possibly even fines for not paying what you didn't know you owed.
eric mc said: Had a read - nothing spectacularly new, apart from maybe a new zealousness on behalf of the Revenue to challenge the "Input" (either capital or work) put into a family business by the "other half" and whether the remuneration received is warranted.
This is completely ridiculous...
--snip--
Why should this be any different from dividends in other companies?
Why indeed! The Revenue accept that spouses can transfer shares in quoted companies between themselves in order to achieve the most advantageous tax position whereby as much dividend income as possible is taxed at the basic rate of tax rather than at higher rates.
But they regard the transfer of shares in a family business as a form of tax avoidance. A spouse can benefit from dividends in a quoted company - in which they have no involvement - but cannot benefit in the same way from dividends in a family business where they may well provide assistance, whether directly as an employee or indirectly by way of support to the other spouse.
--snip--
Hopefully the above alone will be sufficient for this to be thrown out eventually.
>> Edited by Mark.S on Wednesday 4th June 23:41
--snip--
Why should this be any different from dividends in other companies?
Why indeed! The Revenue accept that spouses can transfer shares in quoted companies between themselves in order to achieve the most advantageous tax position whereby as much dividend income as possible is taxed at the basic rate of tax rather than at higher rates.
But they regard the transfer of shares in a family business as a form of tax avoidance. A spouse can benefit from dividends in a quoted company - in which they have no involvement - but cannot benefit in the same way from dividends in a family business where they may well provide assistance, whether directly as an employee or indirectly by way of support to the other spouse.
--snip--
Hopefully the above alone will be sufficient for this to be thrown out eventually.
>> Edited by Mark.S on Wednesday 4th June 23:41
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff