petersaxton wrote:There are ways of not paying a penalty but keeping the company.
Please enlighten us Peter, because while some penalties are justified the way the regime is set-up at the moment seems to be just a legislative money-making scam on behalf of HMRC and HM Treasury.
I've had one like that in the past
He believed that any tax bill was too high, so when he ignored my advice on dividends and got hit by a huge bill for self assessment (which was my fault obviously), I did smile inwardly.
Disengaged him about 3-years ago for being abusive to my bookkeeper.
You need to stop working for your business - be a capitalist
If you are only ever going to be the front-line resource for your business then you are always going to suffer from this day-to-day grind with no end in sight.
This is why the best way of doing things is to build up a staff underneath you and move into a more supervisory role, gradually as things progress you will still be earning money even when you are on the golf course.
Not everyone can do this, but it is a perfectly rational and achievable goal for anyone who is running their own business, has a good handle on costs and can deal with the staff issues that arise.
Shame - interesting question, I was interested in the answer
ShirleyM wrote:.. so he/she is unable to answer.
The business is its own legal entity and continues to exist regardless of the status of the owner, even one enjoying a period at "Her Majesty's pleasure".
The business can only cease to exist if it is struck off the register at Companies House, provided this has not occurred, then it is still in existence.
What was the form of the company during your period in gaol? Did it employ other staff to keep it in operation? or was it just a one-man-band?
I still think HMRC are wrong, but need more information to directly phrase the argument.
HMRC hold the remit for dealing with national minimum wage issues, so is it possible that a complaint has been submitted suggesting that your client or the farmers are underpaying?
There has also been pressure put on HMRC in relation to the use of agencies to avoid PAYE through the use of non-UK based agencies (Channel Islands, etc.). I presume this doesn't affect your client.
To be honest, it could be anything, but those were the two which sprang to mind.
So called "random enquiries" tend to be nothing of the sort in my opinion.
Not quite correct John
johngroganjga wrote:Taking as read your assurances that IR35 is not in point here, I can see no difficulty with what you propose. Minimum wage doesn't come into it if he is a controlling director.
Minimum wage doesn't come into to it provided he is an office-holder (i.e. director, company secretary) and has no contract of employment for the company of which he is an office-holder.
Why not a Limited Company?
Given that you are concerned with the tax effectiveness of your business, why would you reject the limited company approach?
Being out of the UK isn't sufficient
He needs to be able to prove that his residence in Thailand is a settled one, he should speak to a local Thai accountant to become tax resident in Thailand.
My primary concern here would be that by only having weak ties to Thailand, HMRC could argue that he has not moved there for a settled purpose, as it's effectively a holiday home for when he is not working.
Does he have a Thai residence visa?
Steve Kesby wrote:... being a director of a UK company, he HAS to file a UK Tax Return! :)
There is no statutory requirement for the director of a UK company to complete a tax return unless HMRC decide to send him/her one.
HMRC policy regarding directors tax returns has no basis in law.