FLR income requirement

[stuartsko]

Hi all, my wife will be applying for FLR in just over s year.. I am a company director and had great difficulty applying for her spouse visa.. Paul at thai visa express did a fantastic job for me after a not so reputable visa agent made a complete mess of my 1st application.. This time round I'm going to do it myself.. Living in sheffield I will be doing the same day service.. Because of the up coming tax changes on dividends when entering the 40% tax bracket I was thinking about using some of the wife's tax allowance.. She already works for my company as a cleaner, I was going to increase her PAYE wages well above the £18,600 needed for tax reasons mainly.. When she applies for FLR does this mean my income can be taken out of the process?? If so this would make things much more simple in the paperwork department... Thanks in advance for any greatly appreciated advice... Stuart

Edited December 6, 2015 by stuartsko

[mikebell]

I am a UK-ex-pat. My Thai wife and I live permanently in Thailand; she has a National Insurance number. Because she is a housewife she does not pay any tax. Could I reduce my tax liability by using my wife's tax allowance- indeed does she have one?

[theoldgit]

I am a UK-ex-pat. My Thai wife and I live permanently in Thailand; she has a National Insurance number. Because she is a housewife she does not pay any tax. Could I reduce my tax liability by using my wife's tax allowance- indeed does she have one?

As you would expect it's not that straightforward.

The scheme allows you to transfer £1,060 of the personal allowance from a person who earns below the allowance to their spouse or partner, thus reducing their liability by up to £212.

I believe that you can take advantage of this scheme providing that you both have a Personal Allowance, even if you live overseas, but if you live overseas you can only get the Personal Allowance if you meet the criteria of being a UK/EU passport holder or working for the UK Government during that tax year.

So, as I read it, a NI number alone wouldn't allow you to qualify, but if your wife has a UK passport she would.

The details are here and you can apply online https://www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance-guide

[mikebell]

Thank you OG for such a prompt & helpful response.

[7by7]

Back to the OP.

For family leave to remain applications, i.e. FLR and ILR, the applicant's income can be used as well as or instead of the sponsor's.

So, Stuart, if your wife is earning above the limit, currently £18,600 p.a., then she can use her income alone in her FLR application under category A or B of the financial requirement, whichever is appropriate.

Remember, though, that she will have to provide all the appropriate evidence specified in Appendix FM-SE.

[stuartsko]

Back to the OP.

For family leave to remain applications, i.e. FLR and ILR, the applicant's income can be used as well as or instead of the sponsor's.

So, Stuart, if your wife is earning above the limit, currently £18,600 p.a., then she can use her income alone in her FLR application under category A or B of the financial requirement, whichever is appropriate.

Remember, though, that she will have to provide all the appropriate evidence specified in Appendix FM-SE.

That's great 7x7... Will save me a lot of paperwork, time and effort... Thank you very much for sharing you knowledge... Regards stuart

[Richard W]

So, Stuart, if your wife is earning above the limit, currently £18,600 p.a., then she can use her income alone in her FLR application under category A or B of the financial requirement, whichever is appropriate.

In this case, that sounds dangerous to me. Might not the extension be refused on the grounds that the claimed earned income was falsified? Does the 10 year exclusion rule apply to deliberate falsification in FLR applications?

[stuartsko]

So, Stuart, if your wife is earning above the limit, currently £18,600 p.a., then she can use her income alone in her FLR application under category A or B of the financial requirement, whichever is appropriate.

In this case, that sounds dangerous to me. Might not the extension be refused on the grounds that the claimed earned income was falsified? Does the 10 year exclusion rule apply to deliberate falsification in FLR applications?

Not at all, this is advice my accountant has given me, currently my wife earns £10 an hour working as a cleaner, she cleans a factory floor with heavy CNC machinery operating.. When the machines are not in use she gets inside them and even maintains them, oiling etc... It is very manual but semi skilled... Also dangerous.. She loves the job and banter with the lads.. If I decide to increase her pay to say £20 an hour for 30 hours that is my decision and nobody elses... It's not illegal to give somebody a pay rise.. If I do happen to reduce my wages slightly to compensate that is also my decision.. And if we both as a couple benefit from that decision by a lesser tax liability then that not illegal either.. I was asking for visa advice as I didn't know... Business I do know and I can assure you there is nothing wrong with my wife's or my earnings Edited December 7, 2015 by stuartsko

[Trevor1809]

I don't understand why the op wants to risk a rejection on some technicality just to save a bit of paperwork. Trying to the do the FLR myself and doing it on the same day service caused no end of problems and I still battling with UKVI over the extra surcharges that I had to pay. Yes it cost more money having gone through a solicitor but at least my wife got her FLR.

Left to my own devices I wasn't even offered the damn appointment and still had to pay a shed load of money to get nothing. I think it is false economy to do this on the cheap when you consider the potential outcome.

At the end of the day, the paperwork that you have to submit is stuff you should have in any case although I agree there is a huge volume of it.

One thing that did surprise me as I went to Sheffield as well was that I had a lever arch full of stuff bursting at the seams. There was one other couple there that seemed to have half the amount of stuff I had then everybody else seemed to have just a few sheets of paper.

Now I accept that I have no idea what kind of visa they were all applying for but it seemed very odd that there was me with a ton of stuff then there were all these people with next to nothing.

The other annoying thing was there were two, I will refer to them as helpers, who were acting as some sort of agent dealing with the applicants spreading themselves out and taking up the limited seated waiting accommodation whilst the wife and I had to stand most of the time.

[7by7]

Stuart is not risking rejection on a technicality!

From the financial requirement appendix.

4.1. Ways of meeting the financial requirement
4.1.1. Where the applicant has to meet the minimum income threshold, the financial requirement can be met in the following 5 ways:

•  Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)...........

(7by7 emphasis)

[stuartsko]

I don't understand why the op wants to risk a rejection on some technicality just to save a bit of paperwork. Trying to the do the FLR myself and doing it on the same day service caused no end of problems and I still battling with UKVI over the extra surcharges that I had to pay. Yes it cost more money having gone through a solicitor but at least my wife got her FLR.

Left to my own devices I wasn't even offered the damn appointment and still had to pay a shed load of money to get nothing. I think it is false economy to do this on the cheap when you consider the potential outcome.

At the end of the day, the paperwork that you have to submit is stuff you should have in any case although I agree there is a huge volume of it.

One thing that did surprise me as I went to Sheffield as well was that I had a lever arch full of stuff bursting at the seams. There was one other couple there that seemed to have half the amount of stuff I had then everybody else seemed to have just a few sheets of paper.

Now I accept that I have no idea what kind of visa they were all applying for but it seemed very odd that there was me with a ton of stuff then there were all these people with next to nothing.

The other annoying thing was there were two, I will refer to them as helpers, who were acting as some sort of agent dealing with the applicants spreading themselves out and taking up the limited seated waiting accommodation whilst the wife and I had to stand most of the time.

Hi Trevor, when we applied for my wife's spouse visa the second time round I decided it would be easier to resign as a director for 6 months prior to the application so I could just use my bank statements and wage slips, like a normal employee... The scale of me going down the director route was outrageous.. A director of a smaller company would have no problem... My situation is a bit more awkward... I work as a director of a company that this year will turn over more than 8 million, 12 months bank statements for us is about 2000 sheets of A4 paper, the bank statements are only a small part of the application... The massive scale of preparing all the paper work would not only be time consuming but also cost 1000's in admin costs... I would without any exaggeration need a sack barrow to submit my application... The other problem I have as a majority shareholder out of 8 different shareholders (4 of us family) is I am 1 person short of the non family shareholders to be exempt from being classed as self employed rather than employed.... I WOUD NEVER EXPECT AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS TO BE PROCESSED THE SAME DAY... It would be impossible and would never recommend anyone who is in my situation to go down that route... Loads easier by giving the Mrs a pay rise and slipping in a p60 6 months wage slips and bank statements... Nice simple application.... I don't think I'm risking a rejection at all but can understand where you are coming from... Edited December 10, 2015 by stuartsko

[Trevor1809]

Stuart is not risking rejection on a technicality!

From the financial requirement appendix.

4.1. Ways of meeting the financial requirement

4.1.1. Where the applicant has to meet the minimum income threshold, the financial requirement can be met in the following 5 ways:

•  Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)...........

(7by7 emphasis)

I still wonder if it is worth taking the risk. Would the case working not want to know why the sponsor has no employment, no pension, no benefits, no private income, absolutely nothing. Just wondered is they dug deeper by looking at the settlement visa and saw the difference started to ask questions. As I exceeded the income requirement on my own through salary why it necessary to supply company accounts, CT600, dividend certificates, bank statements showing all income matches the statement both for me and my wife.

Given that RTI has been running for a few years now all this paperwork seems to be unnecessary anyway, just phone up HMRC and ask them and the case worker gets the earnings up to within a month of the application.

[Trevor1809]

I don't understand why the op wants to risk a rejection on some technicality just to save a bit of paperwork. Trying to the do the FLR myself and doing it on the same day service caused no end of problems and I still battling with UKVI over the extra surcharges that I had to pay. Yes it cost more money having gone through a solicitor but at least my wife got her FLR.

Left to my own devices I wasn't even offered the damn appointment and still had to pay a shed load of money to get nothing. I think it is false economy to do this on the cheap when you consider the potential outcome.

At the end of the day, the paperwork that you have to submit is stuff you should have in any case although I agree there is a huge volume of it.

One thing that did surprise me as I went to Sheffield as well was that I had a lever arch full of stuff bursting at the seams. There was one other couple there that seemed to have half the amount of stuff I had then everybody else seemed to have just a few sheets of paper.

Now I accept that I have no idea what kind of visa they were all applying for but it seemed very odd that there was me with a ton of stuff then there were all these people with next to nothing.

The other annoying thing was there were two, I will refer to them as helpers, who were acting as some sort of agent dealing with the applicants spreading themselves out and taking up the limited seated waiting accommodation whilst the wife and I had to stand most of the time.

Hi Trevor, when we applied for my wife's spouse visa the second time round I decided it would be easier to resign as a director for 6 months prior to the application so I could just use my bank statements and wage slips, like a normal employee... The scale of me going down the director route was outrageous.. A director of a smaller company would have no problem... My situation is a bit more awkward... I work as a director of a company that this year will turn over more than 8 million, 12 months bank statements for us is about 2000 sheets of A4 paper, the bank statements are only a small part of the application... The massive scale of preparing all the paper work would not only be time consuming but also cost 1000's in admin costs... I would without any exaggeration need a sack barrow to submit my application... The other problem I have as a majority shareholder out of 8 different shareholders (4 of us family) is I am 1 person short of the non family shareholders to be exempt from being classed as self employed rather than employed.... I WOUD NEVER EXPECT AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS TO BE PROCESSED THE SAME DAY... It would be impossible and would never recommend anyone who is in my situation to go down that route... Loads easier by giving the Mrs a pay rise and slipping in a p60 6 months wage slips and bank statements... Nice simple application.... I don't think I'm risking a rejection at all but can understand where you are coming from...

I guess you can resign your Directorship then just be a normal employee and submit P60 and payslips. I agree that the paperwork provided under category F seems excessive and no doubt the case worker has no idea what they are looking at.

[stuartsko]

Stuart is not risking rejection on a technicality!

From the financial requirement appendix.

4.1. Ways of meeting the financial requirement

4.1.1. Where the applicant has to meet the minimum income threshold, the financial requirement can be met in the following 5 ways:

•  Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)...........

(7by7 emphasis)

I still wonder if it is worth taking the risk. Would the case working not want to know why the sponsor has no employment, no pension, no benefits, no private income, absolutely nothing. Just wondered is they dug deeper by looking at the settlement visa and saw the difference started to ask questions. As I exceeded the income requirement on my own through salary why it necessary to supply company accounts, CT600, dividend certificates, bank statements showing all income matches the statement both for me and my wife.

Given that RTI has been running for a few years now all this paperwork seems to be unnecessary anyway, just phone up HMRC and ask them and the case worker gets the earnings up to within a month of the application.

There would be no risk... I still have an income that would be clearly seen on our joint bank statements.. We just wouldn't be using it to meet the requirements, simple

Edited December 13, 2015 by stuartsko

[7by7]

Indeed, zero risk.

The wording in the relevant part of the financial appendix, which is part of the immigration rules, is perfectly clear: "Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)"

TBH, Trevor, if you cannot understand this very simple part of the requirement, it is little wonder that you had so much difficulty in understanding the more complicated requirements for the self employed.

Edited December 14, 2015 by 7by7

[durhamboy]

Is it really zero risk?

As I understand it stuart is proposes to pay his wife from his own company.

If the company is, for example, trading at a loss and was otherwise insolvent but for, say, bank loans wouldn't that be in contravention of the rules. It could certainly be construed as circumventing the rules in those circumstances.

Btw, I'm not in any way suggesting stuart's company is insolvent and may well be very profitable for all I know. The point being that I don't think it is that simple when a husband and wife are paying themselves.

[Trevor1809]

Indeed, zero risk.

The wording in the relevant part of the financial appendix, which is part of the immigration rules, is perfectly clear: "Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)"

TBH, Trevor, if you cannot understand this very simple part of the requirement, it is little wonder that you had so much difficulty in understanding the more complicated requirements for the self employed.

I understand fully but can you explain why is my salary alone exceeds £18,600 plus my wife's greatly exceeds £18600 I am still expected to apply under category F and supply company accounts. Why did you not propose the solution of ceasing to be a Director. The trouble is does being a controlling share holder mean you still have to apply under code F.

You say zero risk and yes what the op is doing meets the requirements however it is very contrived. I don't know of many cleaners exceeding £9 per hour. I would be interested to read the contract of employment, assuming that there was one.

I would love to see the op get this one past HMRC if they went to town on a tax investigation.

[Trevor1809]

Is it really zero risk?

As I understand it stuart is proposes to pay his wife from his own company.

If the company is, for example, trading at a loss and was otherwise insolvent but for, say, bank loans wouldn't that be in contravention of the rules. It could certainly be construed as circumventing the rules in those circumstances.

Btw, I'm not in any way suggesting stuart's company is insolvent and may well be very profitable for all I know. The point being that I don't think it is that simple when a husband and wife are paying themselves.

That goes some way to explain my concerns as well and why people in control of a company apply under category F. Otherwise you just submit a pile of contrived documents to meet the requirement.

Anybody can put money into their account to look as though they are earning at more than £1550 per month, down load some free payroll software, knock off some pay slips and a P60 and hey presto. There are no checks with HMRC that the tax and NI is actually paid. All totally fictious.

[stuartsko]

Indeed, zero risk.

The wording in the relevant part of the financial appendix, which is part of the immigration rules, is perfectly clear: "Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)"

TBH, Trevor, if you cannot understand this very simple part of the requirement, it is little wonder that you had so much difficulty in understanding the more complicated requirements for the self employed.

I understand fully but can you explain why is my salary alone exceeds £18,600 plus my wife's greatly exceeds £18600 I am still expected to apply under category F and supply company accounts. Why did you not propose the solution of ceasing to be a Director. The trouble is does being a controlling share holder mean you still have to apply under code F.

You say zero risk and yes what the op is doing meets the requirements however it is very contrived. I don't know of many cleaners exceeding £9 per hour. I would be interested to read the contract of employment, assuming that there was one.

I would love to see the op get this one past HMRC if they went to town on a tax investigation.

If you wife's salary is above £18,600 then using your income was not necessary and you could have made things much more simple for your self... When applying for a visa rules are rules.. There is nothing wrong with using the rules to your advantage.

[stuartsko]

Indeed, zero risk.

The wording in the relevant part of the financial appendix, which is part of the immigration rules, is perfectly clear: "Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)"

TBH, Trevor, if you cannot understand this very simple part of the requirement, it is little wonder that you had so much difficulty in understanding the more complicated requirements for the self employed.

I understand fully but can you explain why is my salary alone exceeds £18,600 plus my wife's greatly exceeds £18600 I am still expected to apply under category F and supply company accounts. Why did you not propose the solution of ceasing to be a Director. The trouble is does being a controlling share holder mean you still have to apply under code F.

You say zero risk and yes what the op is doing meets the requirements however it is very contrived. I don't know of many cleaners exceeding £9 per hour. I would be interested to read the contract of employment, assuming that there was one.

I would love to see the op get this one past HMRC if they went to town on a tax investigation.

It doesn't matter where her income comes from as long as it is legal, which it is... I can't understand why both you and Trevor are turning this into some kind of conspiracy theory... I blame the rothscilds

[Trevor1809]

Indeed, zero risk.

The wording in the relevant part of the financial appendix, which is part of the immigration rules, is perfectly clear: "Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)"

TBH, Trevor, if you cannot understand this very simple part of the requirement, it is little wonder that you had so much difficulty in understanding the more complicated requirements for the self employed.

I understand fully but can you explain why is my salary alone exceeds £18,600 plus my wife's greatly exceeds £18600 I am still expected to apply under category F and supply company accounts. Why did you not propose the solution of ceasing to be a Director. The trouble is does being a controlling share holder mean you still have to apply under code F.

You say zero risk and yes what the op is doing meets the requirements however it is very contrived. I don't know of many cleaners exceeding £9 per hour. I would be interested to read the contract of employment, assuming that there was one.

I would love to see the op get this one past HMRC if they went to town on a tax investigation.

It doesn't matter where her income comes from as long as it is legal, which it is... I can't understand why both you and Trevor are turning this into some kind of conspiracy theory... I blame the rothscilds

[Trevor1809]

And no way I am suggesting that it is illegal. If it was that easy I would have done the same as you. First of all my accountant would have had something to say and second I don't believe in zero risk, in anything. Given some of the rejection notices that get published on this site why temp fate is all I am saying.

[durhamboy]

Stuart, this is nothing to do with conspiracies or the rothschilds (?). We are trying to help you. The rules can be quite complex in certain areas especially with regards to self-employment. I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules but I think there must be some conditions applied in respect of a husband paying wages to his wife.

Let me give a possible scenario :-

UK man married to Thai wife applying for FLR in 6 months time. They have no jobs, no other income. They only have just over £10,000 in the bank. So in no way can they meet the financial requirements for FLR.

So man sets up a company and pays his wife £9300 for 6 months. So she can now demonstrate earnings of £18600 pa and thereby qualify for the visa. No income tax liability because she will earn less than her personal allowance for tax. She might even be able to claim tax credits! Only expenses would be minimal - cost of setting up a company plus possible national insurance costs.

If all this was possible to get the visa then everyone could do it so there surely must be stringent conditions against this contained in the visa rules.

Be interesting to hear what 7by7 has to say about it.

[7by7]

This is getting ridiculous!

1) As shown, the financial appendix, which is part of the immigration rules, clearly says that for in UK applications, i.e. FLR and ILR, when relying on earned income that income can be

• the sponsor's,
• the sponsor's and the applicant's or
• just the applicant's.

So, provided their income is at or above the minimum, there is absolutely no reason why one should not, or cannot, use the applicant's income alone.

2) It is no business of UKVI how much an employer chooses to pay their employees; even if they are family members.

3) Many self employed people employ spouses and other family members in some capacity and pay them a salary in order to reduce their own tax liability.

They do so usually on the advice of their accountant; any competent accountant would surely offer such advice.

HMRC are fully aware of this; it is not illegal; provided it is genuine employment, proper records are kept etc..

Tax Implications of Employing Family Members

[durhamboy]

Actually 7by7 it is not ridiculous.

Your comment dismissing what I said led me to look at the rules. These say :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469692/Appendix_FM_1_7_Financial_Requirement_August_2015.pdf

4.2. Sources that are not permitted

4.2.1. Income from the following sources will not be counted towards the financial requirement:  Any subsidy or financial support from a third party (other than child maintenance or alimony payments, academic maintenance grants/stipends or gifts of cash savings that meet the requirements specified in paragraph 1( of Appendix FM-SE).  Income from others who live in the same household (except any dependent child of the applicant who has turned 18 and continues to be counted towards the higher income threshold the applicant has to meet until they qualify for settlement).

As you can see it says income from others who live in the same household cannot be counted towards the financial requirement. So it would seem that in the scenario I gave the income would all be disallowed. In stuarts case I would imagine that the income that would be disallowed would be in proportion to his shareholding in the company e.g. if he owns 60% of the company then 60% would be disallowed.

However one caveat to what I say. This is a complex area of the rules (despite what you try to imply) and I am not entirely sure what the outcome would be.

[7by7]

"Income from others who live in the same household" means people who are neither the applicant nor sponsor.

As I said before, and have repeated since

Stuart is not risking rejection on a technicality!

From the financial requirement appendix.

4.1. Ways of meeting the financial requirement
4.1.1. Where the applicant has to meet the minimum income threshold, the financial requirement can be met in the following 5 ways:

•  Income from salaried or non-salaried employment of the partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work)...........

(7by7 emphasis)

As Stuart's wife is the applicant and as she earns sufficient to meet the income requirement on her own. Stuarts income is irrelevant.

End of.

[durhamboy]

7by7 you say " "Income from others who live in the same household" means people who are neither the applicant nor sponsor."

Where does it say in the rules that this does not mean people who are the applicant or sponsor?

The only reason I can see for having this rule is that it is meant to cover the applicant and sponsor or else what would be the point of having this exclusion.

[stuartsko]

Since when has somebody's PAYE wages that are hard earned been classed as a subsidy or financial support??? Her wages are from a company and not from me personally... I personally find your ridiculous comments moronic

[Richard W]

2) It is no business of UKVI how much an employer chooses to pay their employees; even if they are family members.

3) Many self employed people employ spouses and other family members in some capacity and pay them a salary in order to reduce their own tax liability.

They do so usually on the advice of their accountant; any competent accountant would surely offer such advice.

HMRC are fully aware of this; it is not illegal; provided it is genuine employment, proper records are kept etc..

Tax Implications of Employing Family Members

That link gives some rules that must be followed. The first is:

Your relative has to be hired to do real work at a proper commercial wages rate. HMRC are likely to query payments of £50 per hour to a 5-year-old who is ‘employed’ to take telephone messages!

So you are saying that UKVI must accept as real a salary that HMRC would disregard as contrived for tax avoidance. What is your basis for this statement?

[Richard W]

Not at all, this is advice my accountant has given me, currently my wife earns £10 an hour working as a cleaner, she cleans a factory floor with heavy CNC machinery operating.. When the machines are not in use she gets inside them and even maintains them, oiling etc... It is very manual but semi skilled... Also dangerous.. She loves the job and banter with the lads.. If I decide to increase her pay to say £20 an hour for 30 hours that is my decision and nobody elses... It's not illegal to give somebody a pay rise.. If I do happen to reduce my wages slightly to compensate that is also my decision.. And if we both as a couple benefit from that decision by a lesser tax liability then that not illegal either.. I was asking for visa advice as I didn't know... Business I do know and I can assure you there is nothing wrong with my wife's or my earnings

Since when has somebody's PAYE wages that are hard earned been classed as a subsidy or financial support??? Her wages are from a company and not from me personally... I personally find your ridiculous comments moronic

If your pay is reduced to compensate for her pay rise, that looks very like a subsidy to me. Of course, the key question is how UKVI will view it.