Old NIC's column. By David R. Harris LLM
Members have asked for further coverage on AccountingWEB of National Insurance matters. David Harris is a barrister specialising in National Insurance matters and begins this occasional series by considering the earnings on which Class 1 contributions are payable.
It is popularly supposed that ‘earnings’ for Class 1 purposes are equivalent to the amount on which tax is paid.
Continued...
The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.
Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.
Or if you are already registered, login here
NIC's and loan write offs
I wonder if David could tell us his views on whether Class 1 NIC applies to loans written off where the borrower is both a director and a participator in the lender company.
Premia!!
Pension 'premia'!
Does he mean 'premiums'?
Impertinence!
He is a barrister and LL M. It is not for you as a mere accountant to criticise his grammar!
Joking aside
I have to say that this article is difficult to read because of poor grammar and archaic sentence construction. I also find it highly irritating that the writer keeps comparing NICs to "tax". NICs are tax.
That is not the only error. The assertion Most benefits in kind are taxable as employment income, but only those specifically brought within the definition of ‘earnings’ are subject to Class 1 contributions. The others attract Class 1A contributions is wrong. Some benefits in kind are not subject to NICs at all.
The assertion no Class 1A charge generally arises if the recipient is neither a director nor an employee earning more than £8,500 per annum is also incorrect. The legislation refers to those earning at the rate of £8,500 per annum or higher.
A barrister is expected to pay more attention to detail.
Is Peter Arrowsmith ill or something? His relaxed, flowing style would be far more appropriate.
Oh yes it is!
In trying (but failing) to sound educated and sophisticated by using an affected style and tone and an affected (but incorrect) spelling, the author has only succeeded in making himself look silly.
I feel entirely justified in pointing this out even though I may only be a 'mere accountant'.