To consider this a job and receive payment/tax credit

[morethanpotatoprints]

Ok, my dh has a small business and I am sahm.
During my week I must clock approx 24 hours doing business related work to assist him. My problem is that yes he could do these things himself, but the time I save him he can use productively in the business himself and in fairness he does.
He draws a wage from the business but doesn't take any dividends, the business could stand me taking 24 hrs pay at NMW. This wage would entitle me to more tax credits, which would definitely come in useful.

My role includes: Meet and greet, issuing permits, making hot beverages, laundry/dry cleaning trips (only business suits here), taking messages, keeping diary. Advising potential clients/customers, liaising with suppliers, customers, providers etc. Bookkeeping/ banking and post. Photocopying, filing,.Entertaining clients and colleagues is also quite often done. Lots more that I can't really think of now.

So is this the job of a PA, is that what they do, sort of assist in the day to day running of the business? If so I am due 20 years back pay

Are you sure you would get more tax credits? Your household income would increase by around £10k, that is likely to reduce your TCs rather than increase them.
If you genuinely work for him then sure, be employed. You should get paid if it's a real job (though I'm not sure washing your husband's clothes is a PA job rather than a SAHM one) and it would be good for you to pay NI.
I do think you might have it wrong about tax credits though.

surely you are assessed as a household for TC?

You certainly could claim and get everything set up properly with PAYE so you're in the 'system' as a proper employee. It does sound like you're doing the job anyway but with none of the benefits a proper employee would get. Whether or not it would increase your tax credits is another matter - your household income would increase, which usually means your tax credits would go down unless the business is making a loss and you offset that against earned income.

Because the household income would go up and therefore benefit the whole family if you took a wage, why is your DH not already doing this if the money is available in the business? Is he saving it to invest in something or similar?

I think the problem I have really is a moral one. At the moment I do the job without payment and dh is min wage, so in effect there will be two min wages coming in and of course mine would be pt at 24 hours. According to the calculator our tax credits would increase because I would be employed.
Dh doesn't take more out of the business because the amount left is needed for goods to buy in to do the work and of course to enable his wage to continue if he experiences a lean month, usually January. According to tax credits and tax office it isn't included as income because it belongs to the business. If we wanted to take some out in the form of a dividend then it is taxable. It just seems silly that I could on paper be employed and yet haven't really looked into this over the years. I pay voluntary NI and have done since not working but is this a higher amount if you are employed?

so you would be taking the same total salary but split over two people instead of one?

Faster.

I think so in effect. The money he earns goes into the business (he is very honest and declares every penny) had to say that as we know loads of people who don't.

He then takes a wage which is usually min wage as explained above. If he was short one month and the business couldn't pay him, the family wouldn't eat. There is enough in the business from what he earns to pay me for 24 hours at min wage, just about. There will not be much left then in case of emergencies though, the business is not money rich at all, but does have security of tangible assets. I know it may seem like I am just after more money because times are hard but I legitimately do the job and over the years have built a reputation as his PA/ assistant/dogs body etc, as well as his Mrs .

Honestly, it doesn't sound as though the business can support it financially if you think it could 'just about' afford it, and if it would mean in a lean month the business couldn't afford to pay it's only current employee.

There may well be advantages to paying you both half of what he currently earns, especially if he earns more than the tax free allowance, or in terms of getting you NI paid, but it doesn't sound as though the business is in a financial position to commit to 24 hours a week paid employment for someone.

Is the problem a moral one? Surely there would be a moral dilemma if you were massaging the facts to create a suitable job where none existed. If you work 24hrs in this role and it makes financial sense to do so then it's a choice. Plenty of people earning 3-100 times your family income make similar choices. Doing it with a low income is surely more acceptable?

I still don't understand how you earning more could increase your household tax credits. The only way that could happen would be if you then used paid childcare. You would then get a contribution but you wouldn't be better off because you would be paying some of the cost yourself.

Sorry Ehric I am not very good at explaining this.

At the moment I am a sahm and unemployed. I don't receive benefit as not job seeking. Dh has small business from this he draws min wage and the rest stays in the business for business use and to pay his wage every month. If I was to become an employee of the company our family income would still be the same as really I am having half of ds wages. However, because I would be employed I would be entitled to tax credits and our family would receive more.

So you would reduce DH hours and you become an employee? I thought that you were eligible as a household once 1 of you were working a minimum number of hours, but if you have done the calculator and it says you would be entitled to more, then it might be worth doing.

You should also reduce your household tax bill since you would benefit from both of your earnings below the tax threshold.

Tbh, you are hardly hiding your millions off-shore...you are only seeking the best way to make your business work fr your family within the (clear!) confines of the lawful systems! I say 'clear' since it is nowhere near the blurred line of tax evasion/benefit fraud!

Flowery's the expert on employment matters, but I dont see why you shouldn't take a wage for the work you do for the family business. I don't know anything about working tax credits, but could the business pay you flexible hours (which is presumably what you do) depending on takings that month?

That makes sense. Yes, I would do it in that case.

Tax credits are based on income, it doesnt matter if one or two people earn that income the amount of benefits paid remain the same. There is no extra if both adults work. Given your household income would remain the same just split its of no advantage bar your own personal allowances.

As you already claim WTC (which is only paid for incomes less than around £15k) then I agree with Flowery in that the business would not appear to support two workers.

If you plan to do 24 business hours, how will that fit in with home educating? HMRC are checking more SE claims than ever to ensure people are running viable businesses rather than simply for benefit reasons.

However given UC required both adults in the household to work in order to claim more people will start looking for ways to meet the criteria.

Happy

Apparently the difference between me working and not working is £136 a week according to the calculator. The income that dh presently receives is not business turnover but his actual wage drawn from the business.
I am already doing the job at present and have done all our married life, I just have never been paid to do it. I don't do set hours 9-5 or anything because sometimes I could have to sort something out at midnight due to the nature of the business.
I don't think UC is going to happen anytime soon btw as it was going to be trialled in the town where I live and has just been scrapped. I must admit though that the new criteria was part of the reason for becoming officially employed but not solely. Having not been employed for 20 years I would find it hard getting work if I ever had to, at least this way I will have been officially employed.

I wouldnt trust the calculator then, there is no bonus element for you both working if you truly are going to simply split the income already bought into the household.

It does contradict your other thread though where you say people should easily be able to live on one persons wage yet you would have two and are only splitting it to net more in benefits.

Happy

I still maintain it is possible to live on one persons min wage. There were no tax credits when ds1 and ds2 were born, we managed as we would now I'm sure. As I said the UC/Tax credits is not the sole reason for this, but also for the security of being able to find other work if the need arises. It hasn't yet but we have 3 dc and who knows what we made need the extra for. Yes there would in effect be 2 incomes but still only equivalent to one min wage split in 2.
I am happy that the moral dilemma has been taken away though if we won't gain extra benefit.

I'm employed by my DP, so is my sister...why would it be an issue?

Youcan'ttouchthis

Thank you. Yes I know its not millions and this probably sounds a bit daft but you can probably see from the history of low income, neither dh or myself are driven by high earnings. I have nothing against those who have, its each to their own. But I really admire my dh for his straight down the middle honesty and as I am the one who does the form filling like to know I am being honest for all our sakes. I couldn't sleep at night and would be worried sick. Dh is often asked to do things for cash, he says yes I accept any payment and then they are as he says it will be declared.

tabulahrasa.

Only moral as would be splitting his income not creating another. This may prove to pay more TC/ meet criteria for UC.
I suppose a bit like the Politicians who had wife as employed bookkeeper to save tax.

The way we work it is...other employees are always paid, DP only takes a wage if there is money there to be had.

I happen to live with him, but that doesn't change the fact that I am actually employed by him.

I dont see why not, but does the new UC require both partners to work then? Why does it matter if 2 people work to bring in the same money that one person gets just now?

ssd.

It shouldn't do but apparently to meet criteria for UC both partners have to be working or seeking work. As a long term sahm I never wanted to become employed so hence would lose UC as not prepared to job seek.
This is my dilemma now, I can see my judgy pants sister saying, you've only done this to get benefit. When there is another good reason like not knowing what's round the corner. Who would have thought that a government would make so many cuts to welfare. Who would have thought that interest rates would go from 4% to 15.5 %? But both happened.
Tabulahrasa
It is the implication of sharing dhs wage that is the problem, not being employed by him. Sometimes he has to pay up to 16 people before he receives the money for work undertaken and obviously other business related expenses. The business is doing well but the money needs to stay there not in our pocket. So because we are in effect low income and would both be working we will probably gain money from TC/UC so I am lead to believe.
Our accountant says its a pretty well known loophole.

But it's only sharing his wage if you think of it as sharing his wage - otherwise it's paying his employee first and seeing what's left over for him to take.