Accounts question

[neocon]

Where it says,

Renumeration of Directors £322 (1000)

Do you think that means that the named directors shared 322? Maybe not equally I guess.


https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/...IxMWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

 

[Raymond Lin]

I can tell you for £322.

 

[VincentHanna]

Remuneration is defined as payment or compensation received for services or employment and includes base salary, any bonuses and any other economic benefits that an employee or executive receives during employment.

 

[jsmoke]

Does it not tell you underneath.

 

[Destination]

It partially does.
It states the 6 directors shared the 322000, and states how much the largest portion one of them took was. It also states that some remuneration was funded from another source.

 

[Jokester]

It’s the total payments to directors, £322,000.

 

[neocon]

It's only ~ 50k , 6 ways

It doesn't seem a lot

 

[Jokester]

A lot of directors don’t do much as regards the day to day running of companies and will actually be directors of multiple companies and being paid by all of them.

 

[jsmoke]

At a quick look it's says the highest paid director got £138,000, 'other' directors got £153,000, so split between up to 5 directors if 6 is the max directors and also there is an auditors renumeration of £22,000 and other services relating to tax of £11,000. Which comes to roughly the right amount, give or take around £1000.

 

[One More Solo]

At a quick look it's says the highest paid director got £138,000, 'other' directors got £153,000, so split between up to 5 directors if 6 is the max directors and also there is an auditors renumeration of £22,000 and other services relating to tax of £11,000. Which comes to roughly the right amount, give or take around £1000.

That’s not what it says.

@OP why are you asking?

 

[neocon]

I was trying to find out who owned shares in the company.

But I was surprised to see the directors pay, but it just seems a bit low. I've never looked at company accounts and didn't know that had to be disclosed.

 

[jon86]

If you look at the wage and salaries costs section, it says that 312 employees cost a total of £11,146,000, which is roughly £35,724.36 each. Clearly some will be paid considerably more and some considerably less, but it is an interesting number nonetheless. It also says that pensions contributions came to £89,000, which doesn't seem like a lot. That's just £285.26 per employee, or 0.798% of the wage and salaries cost. It isn't even 1%.

 

[neocon]

If you look at the wage and salaries costs section, it says that 312 employees cost a total of £11,146,000, which is roughly £35,724.36 each. Clearly some will be paid considerably more and some considerably less, but it is an interestingly number nonetheless. It also says that pensions contributions came to £89,000, which doesn't seem like a whole lot. That's just £285.26 per employee, or 0.798% of the wage and salaries cost. It isn't even 1%.

Yes, 1% is the minimum required by law now. Think it goes up to 2% in the new tax year.

 

[Vonhelmet]

If you want to find out who owns shares in the company you need to look at the parent undertaking note at note 17. You’ll find out more by looking at the latest annual return at companies house.

 

[dowie]

A lot of directors don’t do much as regards the day to day running of companies and will actually be directors of multiple companies and being paid by all of them.

This, I think people forget about non-exec directors who are paid to turn up for say one day a month. At a small company that could just involve paying them something like a grand or two a day.

 

[The_Abyss]

If you look at the wage and salaries costs section, it says that 312 employees cost a total of £11,146,000, which is roughly £35,724.36 each. Clearly some will be paid considerably more and some considerably less, but it is an interesting number nonetheless. It also says that pensions contributions came to £89,000, which doesn't seem like a lot. That's just £285.26 per employee, or 0.798% of the wage and salaries cost. It isn't even 1%.

It is unlikely to be the minimum 1% as there will be some employees (part time) who do not earn sufficient to qualify for / be included in auto enrolment contributions.

 

[sovietspybob]

If you look at the wage and salaries costs section, it says that 312 employees cost a total of £11,146,000, which is roughly £35,724.36 each. Clearly some will be paid considerably more and some considerably less, but it is an interesting number nonetheless. It also says that pensions contributions came to £89,000, which doesn't seem like a lot. That's just £285.26 per employee, or 0.798% of the wage and salaries cost. It isn't even 1%.

Employers only have to contribute 0.8% on auto enrollment type pensions, i know as i'm on one i put in 1% and they generously put in 0.8%

The government website makes it look like it should be 1% but the small print means it's actually a little bit less.

 

[Dan103]

Employers only have to contribute 0.8% on auto enrollment type pensions, i know as i'm on one i put in 1% and they generously put in 0.8%

The government website makes it look like it should be 1% but the small print means it's actually a little bit less.

Its actually the other way round the employee puts in 0.8% and the employer puts in 1%, then tax relief is claimed to make it up to a minimum contribution of 2%. There is no tax relief on the employers contributions they cannot put any lower than the 1%.

http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/trustees/tax-relief-communications-to-members.aspx

 

[Vonhelmet]

I migth be wrong but I think with companies that are privately owned (by the directors) there's a tendancy to take only basic salary either <£12000 tax free a year or perhaps under the 40% tax point (or somewhere in between) then take the rest in dividends based on the profit (after company tax) / 100 ordinary shares x the number of shares that director holds.

In short, I think its a way for directors who may well earn a lot more than £100K and into the millions to in effect only pay the corporation tax rate as a "shareholder" which I think is 19%. Personally if Im right on this, I think its THE loophole that needs to change.

or am I wrong

It’s common in small owner managed businesses, less common in bigger companies.

Definitely not happening here given the company didn’t pay a dividend this year or the previous year.