Accountant - over complicating things

I would really like to hear this structure.
1. If you are a PAYE worker where does the joint Income & Expenditure fit in.
2. Wages to a partner are added back and reassessed on that partner as Self employed income thereby being subject to Class S PRSI.
 
Sounds like a very good structure that has been devised by some big practice. With a tax write off on the €5k, the fee will in reality be much less. The structure could possibly have been explained to him a bit better, but apart from that, I see no problem at all with it.

When a reputable practice suggests a structure like this, its obviously something they are willing to stand over. Other posters here are probably dying to know the ins and outs of it.
 

Famous last words, but I'll be shocked if this "structure" is legitimate (unless the OP isn't explaining it correctly).
 

I have not heard of that particular structure, but am not surprised that it may exist either. A tax practice I worked in devised a cash extraction scheme for shareholders which was quite long and convoluted, but it was legal. It also was expensive to the client.

Other practices were always trying to challenge it and asking for details (to see how it worked) obviously to copy it, but no can do. Agree a 5k fee is not huge either.
 

I'd love to know how they structured that. I just can't see where the scope is for a PAYE employee.

Maybe the OP could give us more details?
 

Cash extraction schemes exist because the underlying transcations are relatively complicated. The OP's circumstances are uncomplicated. Therefore it's hard to see how it can be legitimate. Having said that, I'm open minded.
 
Look, the OP has missed some key elements of this. Tax practitioners at that level are experts in devising schemes around anything. Thats why Revenue introduced section 811 and section 811A to prohibit practitioners devising schemes which are not in the best interests of Revenue. Surely the best piece of tax legislation in history!!
 
Paddy199 said:
When a reputable practice suggests a structure like this, its obviously something they are willing to stand over. Other posters here are probably dying to know the ins and outs of it.
Click to expand...

It was also a reputable practice that devised an elaborate strucutre of transactions that allowed developers to avoid paying millions in VAT. This elaborate structure was challenged and won by the revenue in 2005 and an assessment was raised on the tax payer.
 
I suggest that Director never made partner then!!

There are many more structures devised that do stand up to Revenue challenges.
In fact, Revenue introduced section 811A because reputable practices are always one step ahead of Revenue. And when they intoduce new legislation, the horse has bolted. This section along with 811 are unconstitutional and will be challenged eventually by someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register