Thank you. Yes I suppose this is the main point HMRC would be interested in. If the correct amount of tax is paid on the payment, then given the small figures involved HMRC would "leave it alone". The key question is whether the officer would admit is such income wasn't being declared. Could the company still become liable if it turns out that the income wasn't being declared, as they should've made deductions in the first place.
Many thanks for your response. To my knowledge, the £720 is declared in the accounts, but not via any PAYE scheme, as the number of employees listed in the accounts is NIL. Hence the worry things are not be declared in a proper manner. The fact the same payment is made every year, I would suggest that HMRC should be made aware that this person is being remunerated as an employee? Although it could be argued the duties are minimal, I would find it difficult to argue they are not an employee, given regular payments (of the same amount) are made on a regular basis, for the same duties.
Many thanks for your response. I did view the page via the link you posted previously, however it didn't really give any clarity, hence why I wondered if there was any case law around this subject yet. May I ask why you think it's unlikely there is MOO. Surely in the role of as company secretary, there would be certain tasks that need to be performed, and that the company secretary would be obliged to perform these. The fact that these tasks are the same every year e.g. issuing notices, filing of the confirmation statement etc. and they are paid the same payment for this tasks every year. Also in respect of IR35, if its the secretaries role to perform these tasks, would the fact that in theory there could be no substitute, mean that this would further the case for being inside IR35. I appreciate the Arts of Association would possible need to be referred to on this point. Also I would suggest there is a element of control over when these tasks need to be performed, however this is probably a very loose interpretation of control.
My answers
Individual
Thank you. Yes I suppose this is the main point HMRC would be interested in. If the correct amount of tax is paid on the payment, then given the small figures involved HMRC would "leave it alone". The key question is whether the officer would admit is such income wasn't being declared. Could the company still become liable if it turns out that the income wasn't being declared, as they should've made deductions in the first place.
Many thanks for your response. To my knowledge, the £720 is declared in the accounts, but not via any PAYE scheme, as the number of employees listed in the accounts is NIL. Hence the worry things are not be declared in a proper manner. The fact the same payment is made every year, I would suggest that HMRC should be made aware that this person is being remunerated as an employee? Although it could be argued the duties are minimal, I would find it difficult to argue they are not an employee, given regular payments (of the same amount) are made on a regular basis, for the same duties.
Many thanks for your response. I did view the page via the link you posted previously, however it didn't really give any clarity, hence why I wondered if there was any case law around this subject yet. May I ask why you think it's unlikely there is MOO. Surely in the role of as company secretary, there would be certain tasks that need to be performed, and that the company secretary would be obliged to perform these. The fact that these tasks are the same every year e.g. issuing notices, filing of the confirmation statement etc. and they are paid the same payment for this tasks every year. Also in respect of IR35, if its the secretaries role to perform these tasks, would the fact that in theory there could be no substitute, mean that this would further the case for being inside IR35. I appreciate the Arts of Association would possible need to be referred to on this point. Also I would suggest there is a element of control over when these tasks need to be performed, however this is probably a very loose interpretation of control.