Giving business to wife

Hello,

Is it illigal to "give" my 50% shareholding in my company to my wife, and then work for her directly as an employee?

CSA woes.

Regards,

Gary.

Reply to
John
Loading thread data ...

But you won't be working for her. You'll be working for the company. Are you not working for the company at the moment?

However, she'll own half the company.

Rob Graham

Reply to
Rob graham

FFS - are they your children - if yes then you are responsible for supporting them. Why should tax payers pay to bring up your children? If the mother is not claiming benefits then surely the children are entitled to some support from you? I have passed your details to my wife, she works in CSA enforcement. Good luck Arthur

Reply to
charmerarthur

It is quite common in this situation, that instead of taking a salary, he pays himself in dividends instead, thus he might not actually be working for the company at present.

Gaz

Reply to
Gaz

If she already owns the other half she will then own all the company.

Would have thought the possibility of two women out to get you might have caused you to pause on this.

Reply to
Old Codger

Why should it be illegal.

It shouldn't affect your CSA situation because you have artificially reduced your assets and income.

Reply to
PeterSaxton

No, but why would you be her employee?

Look up Arctic Systems to see how appalling HMRC were on this.

Pay for your children you slime.

Reply to
R. Mark Clayton

Think close to 2,000 per month for one child can be justified? No? Didn't think so.

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

I own half and a friend owns another half. I am a 50% shareholder and a director. What I am proposing is giving my wife the 50% I own and letting her run my arm of the operation, and I will sit on my backside. I will not have artificially reduced my income, I will have completely removed it, end of. My wife has no legal obligation to provide her income details.

So my question again, is this illigal?

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

I pay myself 95% dividends. However they are counted as "other income" and therefore I am deemed able to pay an obscene amount of money per month (in this case, 2,000).

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

She doesnt, she currently has nothing to do with the business.

Only one woman out to get me, I only have one son from a foul relationship ten years ago. I love my son more than anything and he is well looked after, however I am not paying those greedy f*ckers 2K a month for them and their other 3 kids, allowing them to sit on their fat arses and do nothing all day.

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

Fine. At a cost of 2K per month?

They shouldn't, and I never said they should.

2K per month?

Good, hopefully it will speed them up - they already have all my details, just waiting on the letter to arrive before I take the decision to no longer own a business.

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

We can't tell if it's justified or not since we have no way of knowing how it was arrived it or what financial figures it was based on.

Robert

Reply to
RobertL

Nothing artificial about it. I will resign, period. My wife can do the same job, and will earn a heck of a lot more than she currently does. Simple.

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

We can't tell if it's justified or not since we have no way of knowing how it was arrived it or what financial figures it was based on.

Robert

I took home close to 300K last year. This year is a fraction at approx

120k. This is after tax / ni. Thats irrelevent. I earned 500 a month when I lived with her. I started earning more 7 years after we split. How can they justify 2K per month to bring up 1 child? I don't mind paying for his upkeep - however that is a staggering amount of money for any child to require.

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

Why would the CSA be expecting you to pay for someone else's children? They shouldn't be requiring you to pay towards other men's children, that's the responsibility of *their* father(s).

Reply to
mentalguy2004

Yet based on various discussions, I may soon be required to pay close to

2,000 per month for 1 child. They have an additional 3 children, she won't work and he earns a pittance. Think my money won't be spent on the other 3? They are lazy tramps and should work for a fecking living.

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

From what you said, he *does* work for a living. It's not his fault that his wages don't cover his wife's kids who belong to absent fathers who don't want to pay for them.

Reply to
mentalguy2004

See, she has ONE of my kids and THREE of his. I am MORE than happy to pay for my kid, but none of that money should be anything to do with the other three kids and / or their own financial well being. So I suppose the argument should be, how much does it cost to raise 1 kid?

Gary.

Reply to
news.btinternet.com

Let me see - school fees 2k5 per term, housing, clothing, bicycle, music lessons, holiday, food, games console, transport, pony

Plenty of people spend this much on their kids.

However I can see your concern about conversion.

Reply to
R. Mark Clayton

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.