Interested to know views on the the basis for this. Is it that money was taken by the consultant by way of expenses and that the second director's salary was channeled to the doctor?
There is a comment that the appeals commissioner noted "the salary recorded as having been paid to the consultant by her company “was well below that which could reasonably have been expected by a doctor of the Appellant’s expertise and seniority”."
Is this just commenting on the likelihood of the other payments being routed to her or is it inferring that she would be taxable on the basis of what she "should earn"?
The mislabeling of expenses seems clear as does the reality of the payment to the other director. However I didn't think there was a requirement to pay minimum fees/salary to a director and that in extremis all earned income could just accumulate (net of Corporation Tax and any surcharges).
There is a comment that the appeals commissioner noted "the salary recorded as having been paid to the consultant by her company “was well below that which could reasonably have been expected by a doctor of the Appellant’s expertise and seniority”."
Is this just commenting on the likelihood of the other payments being routed to her or is it inferring that she would be taxable on the basis of what she "should earn"?
The mislabeling of expenses seems clear as does the reality of the payment to the other director. However I didn't think there was a requirement to pay minimum fees/salary to a director and that in extremis all earned income could just accumulate (net of Corporation Tax and any surcharges).