The Fizz! Blog

Travel and subsistence scale rates are an estimating technique, not an allowance!

Although the rules around the tax-free reimbursement of travel and subsistence costs to employees and directors are complicated, it’s often very appropriate for an employer to pay such expenses. When it is, it’s common for the individual to make an expense claim for the costs they’ve incurred, backed up by receipts (though if it’s your own company it’s easier for the company to just pay the costs in the first place, of course).

There’s an alternative system - fixed “scale rate” expenses, based on typical costs in the place being visited. HMRC are content for these to be used instead of actual costs, as long as there’s some reasonable review process in place before the expenses are paid out. There are costs for accommodation, along with the costs of meals, drinks and travel within the city (the total of those last three things being known as the “residual” costs.

However, this is a shortcut to making a reasonable but admin-light reimbursement of costs that really were incurred. It’s an estimating technique that HMRC are content with, not a flat-rate allowance. If no costs have been incurred, there’s nothing to estimate!

There are only a couple of exceptions to this.

If the individual is having their accommodation and meals provided for them by a customer, HMRC will permit a payment of 10% of the residual costs. It’s the same if they’re staying with a friend.
If the individual is being provided with self-catering accommodation, then they can claim 80% of the residual costs for the first week, and 50% thereafter.

HMRC have a bunch of other examples, which are quite helpful if you’re dealing with these situations.

If you’re not paying for your own accommodation and meals, you cannot legitimately be paid the full scale rates tax-free! The daily scale rate for someone paying for their own accommodation and meals in New York is $318.50. If you’re not paying for your own accommodation and meals, then the 10% of the residual costs that you’re allowed to claim is $10.25. Quite a difference! Be careful.

www.fizzhq.com

How does Maternity Pay work for freelancers?

If you’re a sole trader you don’t qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay - that’s only payable to employees. However, there are two bits of good news:

1. You’re very likely to get Maternity Allowance instead. That’s the State Benefit for those who don’t qualify for SMP. Most freelancers will get it at a similar rate to SMP.
2. Unlike SMP, Maternity Allowance isn’t taxable! So someone getting that standard rate of Maternity Allowance will probably be better off than someone getting the same amount of SMP.

The downside is that, unlike an employee, you don’t get 90% of your usual income for the first six weeks - you just get the standard rate throughout. You’re likely to be a little worse off in that respect - but the tax saving will compensate anyway.

www.fizzhq.com

How does Statutory Maternity Pay work for company directors?

Company directors are entitled to SMP on the exact same basis as any other employee - assuming they were on the payroll at the right time, then they’re entitled to 90% of their normal pay for six weeks, and then at a standard level for the next 33. In practice, the company carries on paying the director’s salary as usual, but HMRC reimburses the company for the majority. But, although the rules are just the normal rules, the different circumstances they’re being applied to leads to some wrinkles:

• More often than not (for sensible tax-planning purposes) a director will be paid a pretty low salary compared to other employees. That means that the first six weeks at 90% of normal pay aren’t actually that exciting.
• SMP is only payable whilst you’re still on maternity leave. Business owners tend to come back to the business rather more quickly than the typical employee (particularly if they themselves are the entire workforce!). After 10 “keeping in touch” days, SMP is no longer payable, and that can happen fairly early on for an owner-director.
• Usually HMRC reimburses an employer for SMP by knocking it off the monthly PAYE payments the employer makes to them. But if the director is the only employee, there might be no such monthly PAYE payments. In that case, by default HMRC will reimburse the company after the end of each tax year, but that could cause cashflow issues in the meantime. If so, it’s possible for the employer to ask HMRC to give it the cash up front, to be dripped out to the director as SMP over the period of leave.  That system actually works quite well. Be careful though - if the director comes back to work earlier than anticipated, the company will have to return some of that up front payment to HMRC, and in the meantime the extra lump of money in the company bank account hasn’t really given you any more money to pay dividends or any other costs - else, it’s sitting there to subside the salary over the period of leave.

In general, everything about the system works well - as long as you let your accountant know when you’re going on leave and when you return, anyway!

www.fizzhq.com

Are you getting all the tax relief you can on your workplace pension contributions?

Automatic Enrolment pension schemes have been with us for more than 10 years now. They’ve been a success. They represented a change from “you can contribute some of your salary to a pension if you want to, but you’ve got to set it up yourself” to “some of your PAYE earnings will automatically be contributed to a pension unless you take positive action to come out of it, and then keep taking that action every few years if you want to stay out of it”. It was thought that many people might come out, but plenty would stay in. In fact, the vast majority stayed in. The government tops up your own contribution AND your employer has to contribute too - generally, people have to be very short on income in order to be willing to sacrifice the free money.

There’s a complicating factor, which is that there are two mechanisms by which the schemes can operate (and all employers pick one and one only - you don’t see them giving employees a choice). There’s no difference in how the employer contributions work, but there is a difference in the tax relief on the employee’s own contributions:

• Relief at Source (RAS). In these schemes, for every £8 you contribute, HMRC add another £2. That means everyone gets 20% tax relief from the outset - £10 in their pot at the cost of £8. If your income is above £50,270, and you’re therefore paying tax at a rate above 20%, you can save more tax, but you have to do a bit of extra work to get it.
• Net Pay Arrangement (NPA). In these schemes, your contribution is knocked off your salary before the tax on your payslip is worked out. That means that the tax relief you get depends upon your income:

1. If your income for the year is going to be less than £12,570 anyway, you’ll get no tax relief at all! The tax on your payslips was going to be zero, it’s still zero.
2. If your income for the year is going to be between £12,570 and £50,270, then the reduction in your gross means that you save 20% tax on the contribution. Just the same as your friend in an RAS scheme.
3. If your income for the year is going to be over £50,270, then you’ll save tax via the tax deduction on your payslip at a higher rate - the exact rate depends on your income. The best case scenario is if your income would otherwise be between £100,000 and £125,140 - the reduction in your gross means that you save 60% tax on the contribution! You don’t need to do anything to get all the tax relief you’re due, it all happens on your payslip.

There’s one type of person who loses out permanently here. It’s NPA person #1. They get no tax relief at all! The lowest income people, if they’re in an NPA scheme, get the least government contribution to their pot. An employer who is likely to employ a bunch of people like this might lean towards an RAS scheme if they were kind.

A person who has income between £12,570 and £50,270 should be indifferent to which mechanism is in use. They save 20% either way.

A person who has income above £50,270 should be more or less indifferent between the mechanisms as they needn’t miss out anything - but if they’re in an RAS scheme they just have to put a little more effort in. If they have to do a tax return anyway, the work is minimal - keeping track of their contributions for a tax year and sticking the number in a box on the return. If they don’t have to do a tax return, it’s still not that much work. They don’t have to join the tax return system - they can just write to HMRC once a year to tell them about their contributions, or tell HMRC via their Personal Tax Account. HMRC will just get the employer to adjust their monthly PAYE deductions to get to the right overall result.

In reality, there are likely to be tens of thousands of people who should be doing this, but aren’t. If you’re a higher-rate taxpayer and you don’t know what kind of scheme you’re in, it’d be a good idea to find out! The most commonly used provider, NEST, is a RAS scheme - 20% relief at the time, but you’ve got to do the work yourself to get any further relief you’re due. The second most commonly used provider, The People’s Pension, offers employers a choice of either option at the setup stage, so it could be either! You’d be able to find out from your employer, or from your online account - or from an accountant or PAYE professional looking at your payslips! And if you’re actually in a salary sacrifice system - which is probably the third most common way of dealing with all this - then that’s effectively an NPA, so you’re getting all your relief up-front.

www.fizzhq.com

I've been told my contract is inside IR35 - but what does that mean in practical terms?

Previously on IR35:

• The legislation informally known as IR35 was introduced 23 years ago.  It aimed to prevent those billing via a limited company whilst performing an employee-style role for a customer from benefiting from any of a limited company’s tax advantages; instead they were to pay full employment taxes.
• It didn’t work, because it was self-assessed, and turkeys rarely vote for Christmas.
• In 2017, as a result, the responsibility for making the call changed - if you worked for a public body, the public body would decide if IR35 applied.  If it did, full employment taxes would apply and you’d just be paid the net.
• In 2021 (having been postponed for one year due to COVID), this was extended to large customers - similarly, it became their call on IR35 and their risk if they decided not to account for employment taxes.

If you’re a contractor or freelancer working longish projects with big or public sector customers, it’s therefore quite likely you’ll encounter IR35 these days.  But, if a customer or agency tells you that a contract is inside IR35, what does this mean to you in practice?   This isn’t necessarily a simple question, as there are a number of routes that the customer may take, with the literal implementation of the IR35 rules being the least common by far:

1. They might just put you on PAYE.
2. They might pay you via an umbrella company (from your point of view, this is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as PAYE).
3. They just might actually implement the IR35 process - we don’t see it often, but we do see it occasionally.  If they do, then you’ll send them invoices from your limited company as normal, but they’ll pay the invoices net of tax and National Insurance relating to you personally.  This is obviously a very weird concept, and since all three routes are designed to get to the same split of the money between you and HMRC, the well-worn road of PAYE/umbrella generally looks much more appealing to all concerned.

If you get the choice, your accountant will thank you for picking #1 or #2!  We don’t need the hassle of #3 either.

Here are three practical points to be aware of:

1. Make sure you know whether a contract is inside or outside IR35 before you sign it!
2. Be aware that an inside IR35 contract will leave you with less money in your pocket than an outside IR35 one.  How much less?  That will vary depending on the bigger picture of your whole situation, but as a rule of thumb you might consider that you’d need a 25% day rate hike to stand still.
3. You should talk to your accountant at the outset of the new gig, not later on down the line - as well as the decision on whether to accept the contract, there will very likely be other actions to take too.  It might well be appropriate to pause salary or dividends from your own company whilst working on an inside IR35 contract, and that can’t legitimately be done retrospectively.

It’d be nice if everyone had a common understanding of what inside IR35 means, and the steps we’ll all take when that’s the case.  Until then, you’ll always need to press until you find out what’s actually going to happen in practical terms.

www.fizzhq.com

Is there a cap on holding investments through your company?

Company owners are fairly frequently under the impression that there’s some cap on the proportion of their company’s assets that can be held in investments, as opposed to cash.  This isn’t the case, although we know why the misapprehension exists.

It’s to do with Business Asset Disposal Relief (the relief previously known as Entrepreneurs’ Relief).  When originally introduced, Entrepreneurs’ Relief was fairly exciting.  It could reduce the tax you paid when you sold (or liquidated) your company from 40% to 10%!  At one point, that could apply to profits of up to £10m - in theory someone could save £3m tax if they qualified for the relief.

There were some conditions.  One was that the company had to be wholly or mainly a trading company; non-trading activities couldn’t be substantial.  One such activity is investment.  HMRC ended up issuing the guideline that they might consider 20% as a proxy for substantial.  But was that 20% of income?  20% of assets?  20% of management time being spent on investments?  They were non-committal.  There were various verdicts in tax tribunals over the years that clarified things a bit - generally suggesting that you were probably OK to have quite a lot of company funds invested as long as you weren’t very actively managing them - but if someone wanted complete certainty on the relief they’d generally tread pretty carefully if they were hoping for savings at the upper end of the scale.

Things are very different now.  The top rate of Capital Gains Tax on a company sale or liquidation isn’t 40%, it’s 20%.  And you can’t claim the relief on £10m of income, only £1m at most.  Back in the day you could theoretically save £3m.  Now the maximum benefit is £100,000.  The maximum benefit of the relief is only 3.33% of what it once was!  On top of that, the majority of company owners will probably not arrive at a point where the relief needs to be claimed anyway - and who knows if the relief will even exist at a future point when you come to sell or liquidate.

So, it’s true that for some company owners there was a strong incentive to err on the side of caution with investing funds, in case the effort to generate a bit more profit in the short term meant the loss of a massive tax benefit in the medium to long term.  But it seems to have morphed into a generally held belief that there’s an absolute cap on what a company *can* invest, which isn’t true at all.  Whether you *should* invest company funds is another matter!  But generally perceptions of some big tax disincentive are misplaced.

www.fizzhq.com

The OnlyFans creator tax case actually shows that part of our tax system *is* fit for the 21st century

We were listening recently to a podcast discussing, amongst other things, the tax relief claimed by an OnlyFans creator on costs of cosmetic surgery.  The assertion was made that it’s an example of our tax system not being fit for the 21st century - those who drafted the legislation couldn't possibly have even imagined some of our modern-day sources of income, and it’s in need of overhaul.

Actually, the system of figuring out if costs are tax-deductible is beautifully designed for new and innovative businesses, because it’s principles-based rather than rules-based.  The central principle has always been - “is the cost incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade?”.  That trade could be anything - it could be the trade of a blacksmith, but it could be the trade of a fitness influencer.  From time to time there are grey areas, in which case it may go to a tax tribunal (a “tax court”, basically), and there’ll be a verdict that will either be binding or persuasive in similar situations in the future.  Or, in a grey area, a taxpayer and their advisers might just take a view, understanding that HMRC might have a different one if they looked at it (“would you be able to look a tax inspector in the eye and defend your treatment?” is often a good benchmark).  From time to time a government may actually impose rules if they want to encourage or discourage particular behaviours, but in general deductibility is driven by that first principle, which can be applied to absolutely any business.

There are definitely areas where the modern tax system has not kept up!  20th century legislation and international tax treaties were created for a world where global mobility was generally imagined to be fairly rare - nowadays migration and digital nomads are perfectly normal.  Arguably the treatment of cryptocurrencies (in the UK at least) is based on long-used principles, but does seem counterintuitive to many minds.  And our National Insurance system was designed for an era where most people were in salaried work, with both them and their employer paying into the system.  The subsequent proliferation of freelancers and personal service companies has broken that model.  But the framework for figuring out whether a cost is tax-deductible or not is elegant and foolproof!

www.fizzhq.com

Going on maternity leave? Think twice about opting out of your employer’s pension scheme

When someone's about to go on maternity leave, they'll quite often look at trying to temporarily cut all unnecessary overheads.  You might think that one sensible step would be to opt out of their employer's pension scheme for a while.  Cutting this particular overhead is probably a very bad idea though.

If your employer operates their Automatic Enrolment pension scheme on the most common basis, you’ll be making a contribution each month, and so will they.  Those contributions vary according to your income, and get capped if you’re earning more than £50,000 per annum.

If you go on maternity, your income drops, and so do your contributions.  In fact, after the first six weeks of leave, from which point your salary will probably just consist of basic Statutory Maternity Pay, they’re likely to drop to zero.

But, crucially, your employer’s contributions do NOT reduce at all.  They’re obliged to carry on paying into your pension pot at the level mandated by your normal salary!  Other non-salary benefits work on the same basis, too; they can’t take away your company car or withdraw your medical insurance, for example.

So, by opting out at the start of maternity, an employee could lose nine months of employer pension contributions, whilst saving herself virtually nothing.  A very easy trap to fall into!

www.fizzhq.com

Claiming Capital Losses

If you sell assets like rental properties, shares or cryptocurrency at a profit, you have to consider whether you have Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to pay for the tax year.  But you might also have sold some other assets at a loss in the year - if so, you can deduct those losses from your profits to get to a net profit or loss for the year.

If you wind up with net gains, but they’re less than the Annual Exemption - this year, £12,300 - then there’s no CGT to pay and you move on.

If you wind up with net losses, then you get to hang on to them.  If, in a future year, you have net gains over the Annual Exemption, then you can set those old losses against them, using just enough to get down to the Annual Exemption and eliminate any tax that would otherwise be due, and carrying anything left forward still further.  It might be that you never have sufficient gains in a future year to ever use them, in full or at all, but they’re there if you do.

Capital losses are about to become more valuable, because the Annual Exemption is being cut sharply.  Next year, it’ll be only £6,000, the year after, £3,000.  That means that more taxpayers will be dragged into the CGT net.

There’s an easy trap to fall into.  In order to establish entitlement to most losses, you generally have to claim them within four years of the tax year they occur in (there’s a shorter deadline for some niche cases).  That could be on your Self Assessment Tax Return, if you have to submit one for the year, or you could just do it by letter or some other way.  But you have to somehow tell HMRC before that deadline.  We recently saw a case where someone had losses in 2013-14, and gains over the Annual Exemption in 2021-22.  Unfortunately, HMRC hadn’t been told about the losses, so it was too late for the taxpayer to take advantage of them.  Fortunately, the losses weren’t enormous.

A final consideration - you might need to make a judgement about how much effort you’re prepared to put into quantifying losses that you’re not certain will be useful.  If someone is pretty sure that they’ve got losses this year, but they’ll have to put research time into establishing the history of the share transactions, or pay an adviser to work out the actual loss, should they do it when they don’t anticipate having an opportunity to use the loss in future? To begin with they can kick the can down the road, by making a note for three years’ time to look at it again.  The point will come, though, where they have to make a judgement on whether to do the work before the deadline passes.

www.fizzhq.com

Can I make pension contributions for family members through my limited company?

The rules on how much money can go into someone’s personal pension in a tax year aren’t intrinsically complicated - there are just lots of them. Broadly:

• Almost anyone (even an infant) can have up to £3,600 go into a pension scheme or schemes in a tax year.
• The cap each tax year (the Annual Allowance) on what can go in is £40,000.
• However, unused Annual Allowance from the prior three years can be used too (if you had a pension pot of some sort in place at the time).
• Personal contributions in any year are capped at earned income.
• Employer contributions aren’t capped in that way (so a director with a small salary isn’t limited to contributions equivalent to that salary - their company can contribute more).
• Annual Allowance may be reduced for those with income over £200,000.
• The Lifetime Allowance may prohibit or penalise contributions for those with very big pension pots.

All simple individually, but the synthesis of them can be complex!

There’s another consideration involved where contributions are being made via one’s own limited company. For the company to get tax relief on the contributions, the same standard must be met as for any other overhead - is the cost incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the company’s trade? In practice, that means - does the bundle of PAYE salary, pension contributions and other benefits that the director is receiving represent a reasonable bargain for the work being done, or is it excessive?

For a typical fee-earner, generating the company’s income, it’s almost certainly going to be fine. If your company is making enough money to sustain £12,000 of salary plus £40,000 of pension contributions a year, a £52,000 “package” is unlikely to be excessive and there should be no trouble with the company getting tax relief.

A fairly common question from people already doing that is - can I do the same for my spouse or partner too? That’s much more problematic. If they’re doing no work for the company, then a package of £1 would be excessive, let alone any greater amount! If they’re doing some work, you’ll have to take a position on whether the proposed contribution would meet that “wholly and exclusively” test, when considered alongside any PAYE salary also being paid.

In practice, this tends to mean that for fee-earners, big contributions are fine, whereas for a spouse doing some admin support, say, material contributions aren’t really defensible (and there would instead be an argument for their being taxable as income on the director instead!). It’s easy to get confused about the mechanical “how much can go into the pot” rules, and overlook that aspect.

www.fizzhq.com