AIBU to want a stake in the company earning from my work?

Okay. Thank you for telling me about that preference of yours. And for telling me how unattractive you personally find certain comments. And for your conclusion that this is because of my narcissism. Fascinating.

I can tell you the nerve you've touched. I've posted about it on here before. It's an annoyance that people who don't have anything of value to contribute but nonetheless do. It boils down to narcissism and I find it intensely annoying and unattractive. Which is why I responded to it.

And your latest comments aren't relevant to the OP's problem at all. Things move on, babe.

You can infer whatever you like. For example, I might infer from your increasing rudeness that I've touched a nerve. Babe.

OP, do you feel that you are short of money each month? Your DH may well be fiscally prudent but you sound miserable

It's relevant to the general topic but not to the question being asked in the thread babe. I'm sorry the subtleties of this are beyond you. You did really accuse her of the crime though - it was very clear by inference. Obviously acknowledging that subtleties of language are beyond you, I imagine this might also escape you.

No, that's not the meaning of relevance. What I'm saying is highly relevant to the topic. You might mean that you don't want to see it, which is fair enough, but a different issue.

It's a public forum. The OP asked if she was being unreasonable.

I didn't technically accuse her of a crime, in the same way that routing wages through someone else's company to avoid paying tax is not technically tax evasion.

You don't need to be interested in my opinion, that's fine. Scroll on. I didn't address you in my original comment and I'm not asking you any questions.

It's irrelevant because the thread isn't asking for your opinions on the morals of people using relatively vanilla, well known and definitely on HMRC's radar methods to minimise the tax they pay.
Let's not forget this interaction began with you accusing OP of a crime, erroneously.

Set up your own company if he won't just give you the right to dictate what happens to money you wholly earn. Depending on what you do the tax situation might be very simple for overseas clients, at least for territories like the EU and USA where there are simple tax agreements in place. Get paid in their currencies using a an account like Revolut. I see no benefit to you in this situation. Get your own accountant too.

✨I have posted general advice should she wish to look in to it further✨

Of course it's relevant. But you don't have to engage with me if you don't want.

I don't have the same attitude towards all of those things because largely, they don't result in tax outcomes that the legislation was never intended to permit.

Unless you have the same attitude towards grandparents who gift their grandchildren money, people who invest in premium bonds, self employed people who set themselves up as sole directors of small companies and ISA investors, then your moral judgement isn't particularly useful or relevant.

Okay, thank you. So we're talking tax avoidance, not evasion. Still not right.

They can, perfectly legally.

Again I am not an expert but I don't think legitimate umbrella companies pay artificially low salaries to avoid higher PAYE income tax, do they?

Be a sole trader! With a husband willing to enslave you, I think you need to rethink your options OP!

Effectively an umbrella company. Incredibly normal. There is no evidence it is a dodgy set up.

No, but that's not what she's doing. She said she is invoicing through her husband's company to avoid "IR35 complications." Meaning that she's concerned that if she didn't invoice through her husband's company she might be considered to be inside IR35 and thus pay more tax. Otherwise there would be no point, would there?

There's no evidence that there is anything wrong with the situation. If you go on temp work through an agency it's not tax dodging, is it?

Congratulations, you’ve just discovered why trying to save a small amount of tax by being “clever” is usually more of a ballache than just paying your tax like everyone else. If you’ve been working for various organisation simultaneously/overlapping on a short-term contractor basis then there shouldn’t have been an IR35 impact anyway.
If you set up a limited company, get yourself VAT registered, and have several projects/clients each year it would be fairly easy to show you’re not an “employee” of any of those other organisations and as the shareholder & director you’d be able to plan you own pay/dividends better.

I'm not understaning how a chartered accountant would not know that the OP would not be liable for the debts of a limited company should it liquidate (except under very specific circumstances such as fraud) nor that the threshold for PSC reporting to Companies House is a shareholding of 25%.

My advice to the OP has been that if she wants more insight into her financial and legal position and more control over her earnings (the theme of her thread) then she should seek professional advice, preferably from an accountant who specialises in advising small businesses and freelance workers. I've also included links to the Government website where she can find much information.

This

I’m not entirely sure you are understanding my points to OP - if you would like to give financial and legal advice to her privately then please go ahead. I have posted general advice should she wish to look in to it further. As a chartered accountant it would be unwise and unprofessional of me to do any more than that considering I have no idea of company income, costs or turnover, and that the OP has stated she isn’t as fiscally aware as her husband.

@TheShyMumX "...if you are less than 50% then you are able to access profit via dividends but aren’t liable for any debts should the company liquidate etc
also at less than 50% shareholder you won’t appear on companies house so it will still be ‘his’ business."

If the Company is a private limited company (the usual form for such companies), limited by shares or by guarantee, then the OP is only liable for the amount that she has subscribed in shares or for the amount of the guarantee. The "Limited" in a company name is a warning to other entities that the company has limited liability, limited to the share capital or guarantee declared with Companies House. In general, a director cannot be held liable for the debts of a company - there are exceptions such as when the company has been trading fraudulently, or when the debt is to the Tax authorities, or where a debt has been personally guaranteed by the director. Protection from personal liablilty is the whole point of creating a separate legal entity in the form of a limited company.

A shareholder of such a company who owns 50% of the shares is required to register this with Companies House under the PSC rules - the threshold is 25%.

@Lacksplease "My husband is director of a company I and only me does the work for. He's the director as I don't want my name on companies house. I'm a 50% shareholder."

If you own 50% of the shares you must register this with Companies House as you fall under the PSC reporting rules for People With Significant Control of the company. Not registering is a criminal offence.

If your husband has control of the company accounts you are in exactly the same position as the OP - unless you require all withdrawals to be jointly signed your husband could empty the bank account and run off with all the money. Assuming nobody else is involved, he doesn't own 50% of the company "in theory" - he actually owns 50% and you appear to be happy to allow him to control it.

Doing the childcare has nothing to do with the affairs of the company. If you are happy for him to do the accounts (and presumably also to file all of the tax returns, Co. House returns etc) then employ him or pay him a fee for doing this and take 100% ownership and control of your earnings by having your own company or by being a sole trader.

Wtaf?
If I've read this correctly he has a limited company. You invoice through it but the company doesn't do anything else except what you earn? You then don't take much out (presumably because of tax reasons?). So the company worth grows and nothing much comes out from your husband either?
But it gives you a nest egg should you need it and it's an efficient way to save for kids.
Yep you should be a 50% shareholder.
My husband is director of a company I and only me does the work for. He's the director as I don't want my name on companies house. I'm a 50% shareholder. Sometimes it pisses me off that he doesn't do the work itself and in theory owns 50% but he does do the childcare and the accounts. And the money mostly sits there waiting for my kids.(It's not a huge amount).
That's a much more equal arrangement. It's the bare minimum you should have. I didn't have to ask my husband to set it up like this. He just did it without an argument because that was fairer.