Hey Trevor, I agree. My point is that if you actually treat your company like a company that could employ a lot of people, just doesn't yet, then you are more likely to be treated as such. If you treat your company as a sham/front then you are likely to be treated as such too. Keep everything commercial. Think like a big services company would. Remember, you can be an employee of a large company that contracts you to one particular client for years without any issues. Treat your company like the big company and do as they would do.
Cheers Dave On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Trevor Andrew <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Dave, > > > > Absolutely! I guess I was trying to convey that direct 50/50 income > splitting is what proliferated in the 90’s and that’s what they’re trying to > stamp out with PSI ... After all, doing the books of a 1 (oh that’s right 2) > person company hardly constitutes a full-time job does it J > > > > Cheers, > > Trev > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David Burstin > *Sent:* Thursday, 29 April 2010 5:12 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: Contracting to a single company > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Trevor Andrew <[email protected]> > wrote: > > What they don’t want to see is your company earns X, and you pay a salary > of X/2 to you and X/2 to your wife for “doing the books”. > > > > Unless your wife really is doing the books, has timesheets to prove it, and > is just paid for her actual time at a commercial rate. > > > > Cheers > > Dave > > Cheers, > > Trevor > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Michael Ridland > *Sent:* Thursday, 29 April 2010 4:37 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Contracting to a single company > > > > Hi > > I've heard from some people that there is tax implications of contracting > to a single company for more than 75 percent of your income, is there any > truth to this? > > > Thanks, > > >
