why would accountancy fees go up.
I would guess that the vast majority of people who have an accountant to provide their business accounts don't use the accountant to calculate their personal tax liability. The revenue make a perfectly good calculation for free.
tim
I can't afford one of those, but luckily the PBR is free. I have every confidence that a Lab victory would see 22% for FY2011 (grounds.... "why defer again?") and a Con victory likewise (grounds.... fund NI "cut" / make room to ease IR35 / why disturb a Lab proposal?).
For clarification, remember that a/c years starting anytime from now to next
31March will be taxed at a mix of FY2010 & FY2011 rates."Martin" wrote
Yes, but a/c years starting anytime upto & including
1/4/2010, hence ending anytime upto 31/3/2011, *won't* use the FY2011 rate - will they? ;-)
Give or take the permitted few days "retail" leeway...!
Too right... nor will a company whose a/c y/e ended in 1911. You definitely got me there :-)
To be fair, my first post today specifically referred to the 10-11 LEL.
BTW, I'm intrigued that you're thinking of a company which hasn't yet decided what to pay a director who's already (presumably) been working for a couple of weeks. But not that intrigued.
"Martin" wrote
"Martin" wrote
Y/e 1911 is hardly relevant to amounts paid over the next few months. But y/e (eg) 31/3/2011 *is* relevant for several more months yet!
"Martin" wrote
What makes you think I'm thinking that?
"Martin" wrote
How many paydays do you suppose there has been in those "couple of weeks"?
Yes - I never denied it.
I'm at a loss to fathom what point you're trying to make.
What you wrote.
I wouldn't take a job if I had to wait until first pay-day to discover my salary.
You assumed "the effective SCR is between 21% & 22%". That's not true for y/e 31/3/2011 - it's exactly 21%, which is *not* "enough to tip the balance" (your words).
"Martin" wrote
"take a job"... Eh? Surely this discussion (how much salary to pay, with rest paid as dividends) is related to a shareholder-director? Whatever you don't get as salary, you'll get as dividend!!
Yes, obviously and deliberately. We are most likely talking about the anticipated start of a new accounting year. Perfectly reasonable assumption, since salaries should be determined in advance. Or perhaps you prefer to ignore tax and company law and simply retro-invent salary and div levels to suit already overdrawn DLCs.
Obviously. I didn't claim it was, so why are you telling me?
My words, but not my context. Refer to previous answer.
Anyway, why do you decide to assume a y/e of 31/3/11?
"how much salary to pay" - that sounds like a "going forward" question. Yet you've been trying to support the notion of looking back - "what salary shall we now decide was paid" - last month or last year...?!
I'd love to know what you imagine the director lives off while you wait a year or so to take a retrospective view of how to split things.
After CT, sometimes - but subject to the law on distributions, tax, directors' loans, etc etc.
"Martin" wrote
Why do you say that? I'm talking about the
*current* accounting year (not the next one)."Martin" wrote
I don't agree.
"Martin" wrote
Of course. But that doesn't imply that we should assume we're talking about a *future* accounting year. We can just as easily be talking about the remaining time within the *current* a/c yr.
"Martin" wrote
Of course not. I'm considering *future* salaries/divs, which are paid within a year ending upto 31/3/2011.
"Martin" wrote
Because you were "at a loss to fathom what point [I'm] trying to make."
You're assuming "a mix of FY2010 & FY2011 rates" apply for any future payments, when this isn't true unless the a/c year started on/after 2/4/2010. [BTW, What are the chances of that for the next few months?]
"Martin" wrote
I don't. I'm assuming *any* y/e *upto* 31/3/11. That could be 31/3/11 or 28/2/11 or 31/1/11 or 31/12/10 or ... You get the picture (I hope).
"Martin" wrote
"Martin" wrote
Rubbish. Where have I said anything of the sort?
"Martin" wrote
I'd imagine that s/he *doesn't* "wait a year or so to take a retrospective view".
"Martin" wrote
Of course. I never said it wasn't.
Well, Martin - care to elaborate on your (unfounded) accusation above?
Presumably this weirdness was pointed out to Brown when he decided to abolish the 'unfair' NI entry fee.
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.