FLR income requirement

[Trevor1809]

P60s are not asked for - and with employment of only 6 months, might not be available. Payslips are asked for. I have often wondered how payslips from a small employer are supposed to be checked by an Entry Clearance Officer.

We will be submitting 12 months payslips and at least 1 p60

There you go it is even easier. A spreadsheet package can produce a pay slip.

[Richard W]

Just get some free payroll software, knock off the pay slips, P60, put the same amount of cash into your bank account as the net pay. Download an employment contract and it all on the face of it meets the guidelines. The joke is as an employee you only supply 6 months worth of pay slips.

Now I would never suggest that anybody does that but it is possible.

I presume that you aren't assuming that GCHQ (or the CIA on its behalf) has passed the identity information to UKVI and its predecessors.

Your quoting the CIA and GCHQ to me and calling me the conspiracy theorist haha

I was trying to work out why you thought Gateway was relevant. Read what I said.

We will be submitting 12 months payslips and at least 1 p60

A check with HMRC would confirm your documents.

Trevor's hypothetical cash-in-hand guy seems to be inflating his earnings to reach the threshold - equating his net income to his claimed post-tax income. Supporting bank statements would require advance planning.

However, I'm not sure one could get away with doing this three times (settlement, FLR and ILR); the story might be checked if there was a different employer at each application.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Richard W

[Trevor1809]

We will be submitting 12 months payslips and at least 1 p60

A check with HMRC would confirm your documents.

Trevor's hypothetical cash-in-hand guy seems to be inflating his earnings to reach the threshold - equating his net income to his claimed post-tax income. Supporting bank statements would require advance planning.

But would they actually check with HMRC. If they did check then there would be no need to supply all the paperwork. I am somewhat surprised that they don't do any some sort of direct online check with HMRC. I suppose it is all down to data protection but in the interests of Immigration why they don't do it. It amazes me that I have to write to HMRC and ask for an SA302 then send it with the application. Immigration could just ask HMRC to confirm it.

[el2004]

I think also people comparing a bloke with 10000 grand knocking up payslips for his wife is completely different from Stuart wife working for a Ltd company that her husband is a shareholder. The Ltd company is a separate entity the same way is if she was supplying wage slips from tesco. She's not working for Stuart she is working for the Ltd company

[wooloomooloo]

I think also people comparing a bloke with 10000 grand knocking up payslips for his wife is completely different from Stuart wife working for a Ltd company that her husband is a shareholder. The Ltd company is a separate entity the same way is if she was supplying wage slips from tesco. She's not working for Stuart she is working for the Ltd company

I think that sums it up nicely, el2004.

Shame that the thread has descended to the nadir as the OP posed a sensible question to the forum regulars. Unfortunately, the majority of the regulars appear to have gone west, yet espouse their intention to help. If that's help, well.

[Richard W]

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 think also people comparing a bloke with 10000 grand knocking up payslips for his wife is completely different from Stuart wife working for a Ltd company that her husband is a shareholder. The Ltd company is a separate entity the same way is if she was supplying wage slips from tesco. She's not working for Stuart she is working for the Ltd company

Inconveniently for Stuart, the limited company is not so separate an entity, and the taxman for one is sceptical of their separateness. There are special tax rules for his case. He has to overcome any hurdles designed to prevent the bloke with £10,000 from cheating.

[el2004]

I don't understand what you mean? In terms of a visa they treat him as self employed and require all the documents associated with being a director of a company with other family members. In terms of the tax man he is employed for xxx Ltd earning a salary and taking dividends from the company profits. What that dividend is decided by shareholders. If the company makes millions it's the company's money and not stuarts. If a guy sets up a company with 10000 and pays his wife to "beat" the system realistically what interest is that to the tax man? If the slips are faked then it's fraud regardless. But effectively stuarts wife is an employee of a company and can meet the financial requirements herself. Stuart could sell his share, quit do whatever he wants. His wife meets the requirements by herself as an employee and therefore the documents she would need to prove would be a lot less then the Ukba treating Stuart as the sponsor as self employed. When in fact he is employed

[Richard W]

I don't understand what you mean? In terms of a visa they treat him as self employed and require all the documents associated with being a director of a company with other family members. In terms of the tax man he is employed for xxx Ltd earning a salary and taking dividends from the company profits. What that dividend is decided by shareholders. If the company makes millions it's the company's money and not stuarts. If a guy sets up a company with 10000 and pays his wife to "beat" the system realistically what interest is that to the tax man? If the slips are faked then it's fraud regardless. But effectively stuarts wife is an employee of a company and can meet the financial requirements herself. Stuart could sell his share, quit do whatever he wants. His wife meets the requirements by herself as an employee and therefore the documents she would need to prove would be a lot less then the Ukba treating Stuart as the sponsor as self employed. When in fact he is employed

For most employees, their pay is a fair reflection of their earning capacity. However, in some cases, it can be a fiction. In a family firm, a family member may be paid well beyond his worth. It is also possible for an employee to be fictitious. They don't actually receive any pay. Someone could be given a fictitious salary. I have heard of this being done for the securing of a mortgage, and it could be done in an attempt to obtain a visa or leave to remain. Durhamboy raised the worry that the financial requirements have been phrased to prevent this happening, and that they may unfortunately catch Stuart's wife out by invalidating her pay regardless of whether she is paid a proper amount.

Knowing nothing of Stuart's business, it is conceivable that the profits are highly variable from year to year. As he controls the firm, he might actually sometimes lend the firm money to tide it through a bad patch. The government seems to have decided that this is unacceptable if his net income falls too low, and insists on treating him as self-employed. (A variation of this would be the owner having a negative income and the immigrant wife and employee a positive income meeting the requirement on its own - this may be unacceptable in the financial requirements.)

Unfortunately, the evidence of Stuart's official income in a year is complex. I can remember someone telling me that it took his father well over a year to know what his official income from his partnership was for the previous year. If I understand him correctly, Trevor has adjusted his reporting cycle to meet the timing needs of his wife's applications for leave to remain. Their being two and a half years apart will keep matters complex. For all I know, the Home Office may take the stupid view that Stuart could make a go of things abroad, and should therefore join his wife abroad, rather than her coming to the UK, and simply don't care if marshalling the evidence in time is too difficult.

The relevance of the taxman is that HMRC have developed rules for what they consider a fair assessment of a person's income. They also have (or have had) tests of whether someone's pay is a real business expense. What we read caused some of us to doubt that all of Stuart's wife's pay would be a real business expense, and therefore treated as fraudulent.

All of these issues taken together have caused us to worry that Stuart's wife's application may be rejected if they proceed as proposed.

[theoldgit]

I'm letting this topic run for now but let's cut out the bickering please.

The OP was seeking advice about paying his wife in the region of £41k as a cleaner, because she operates specialised machinery, nice work if you can get.

Maybe the UKVI will simply take the evidence supplied at face value and will not wonder why a cleaner employed by her husbands company is being paid one and a half times the national average salary. I'm assuming the applicant will also demonstrate that the salary level has remained constant throughout her employment with the company.

Let's play nice please.

[Richard W]

The consequences of being refused further leave to remain for the second period of about 30 months on financial grounds might not be as severe as I thought. I now have a dim memory that applicants would be switched from the '5 year path' to the '10 year path' if the financial requirement could not be met. However, on reading the Immigration Directorate Instructions for Family Members, it seems this is only likely to happen if Stuart and his wife have a child together at the time she applies.

[7by7]

I cannot believe that, despite all the evidence, certain posters are still trying to convince us that what Stuart is proposing is fraud and his wife risks deportation and he imprisonment for tax evasion if this fraud is discovered!

It isn't fraud, there is no risk.

That has been amply demonstrated by links to and quotes from the financial requirement and a reputable tax advisor.

Of course, as the link from that tax advisor says, things like paying a 10 year old £50 per hour to stuff envelopes would not be considered by HMRC to be genuine; but Stuart's wife is genuinely employed by his company to do proper, genuine work and is paid the rate for the job.

I'm not going to go all through that again; the evidence is there for all to see, even if some prefer to ignore it.

However, a couple of points I will deal with; in the vain hope of putting this to bed.

1) Durhamboy says "..... you cannot receive income from someone in the same household. Of course income can be combined as 7by7 says but that is not the same as income which comes out of the pocket of someone in the same household."

He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used.

Of course, as he acknowledges, sponsor's and applicant's income can be combined to meet the requirement; and they must be living in the same household otherwise the application would be refused!

2) Both durhamboy and Trevor1809 have been banging on about fraudulent documents.

Well, of course people do use fraudulent documents in visa and LTR applications; I'm sure some of them get away with it.

But it's not a case of knocking up a few payslips on a computer and printing them out!

As anyone who has actually read the financial requirement appendix and the specified evidence appendix knows, more than a few payslips and possibly a P60 is required. For starters, bank statements covering the period showing the wages have been paid into the person's bank.

So, whilst it is entirely possible that someone could and would go to the trouble of falsifying all the required evidence, and also entirely possible that they would be successful, doing so in Stuart's situation and those in similar ones would be a complete and utter waste of time.

Plus there is the factor of constantly living in fear of discovery. Even after ILR has been granted, if it is discovered that fraud was used at any stage then that ILR will be cancelled and the person deported with the very real possibility of being banned from the UK in any capacity for life.

This could even happen if the fraud was discovered after the person had been granted British citizenship.

Finally, Stuart, please come back and tell us once your wife has the decision on her FLR application.

In the extremely unlikely event that she is refused because UKVI don't accept that she is legitimately employed and legitimately paid what she says in her application then I certainly offer my deepest and humblest apologies for misinforming you.

When (if) she is granted FLR then I hope that those who have been trying to convince you that what you are doing wont work will do the same.

But I somehow doubt that they will.

[durhamboy]

I think also people comparing a bloke with 10000 grand knocking up payslips for his wife is completely different from Stuart wife working for a Ltd company that her husband is a shareholder. The Ltd company is a separate entity the same way is if she was supplying wage slips from tesco. She's not working for Stuart she is working for the Ltd company

If you read my initial post (#23) where I introduced this possible ridiculous scenario I said that the bloke with £10k could set up a company. That could be a limited company in the same way that stuart's is a limited company.

It is not a separate entity the same as Tescos because both stuart and the bloke with £10k have an ownership of the companies. Thereby effectively they are paying someone in their own household which is precluded by section 4.2.

Apart from 7by7 none of you have explained why you think section 4.2 stops stuart and the 10k bloke from doing this. 7by7 at least attempted to justify it by saying it doesn't apply to sponsor and applicant but nowhere that I can see in these regulations does it say that.

If it can be done then virtually everyone could meet the financial requirements. You wouldn't really need the £10k just get a loan by remortgaging your house.

It really doesn't matter what HMRC think although it is a useful analogy. What matters is what UKVI think and if they know that stuart owns the company then alarm bells will ring.

Stuart - I can't understand your posts. One minute you're calling me a moron and the next minute you "like" my post (!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!!!!!).

[el2004]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

[stuartsko]

I cannot believe that, despite all the evidence, certain posters are still trying to convince us that what Stuart is proposing is fraud and his wife risks deportation and he imprisonment for tax evasion if this fraud is discovered!

It isn't fraud, there is no risk.

That has been amply demonstrated by links to and quotes from the financial requirement and a reputable tax advisor.

Of course, as the link from that tax advisor says, things like paying a 10 year old £50 per hour to stuff envelopes would not be considered by HMRC to be genuine; but Stuart's wife is genuinely employed by his company to do proper, genuine work and is paid the rate for the job.

I'm not going to go all through that again; the evidence is there for all to see, even if some prefer to ignore it.

However, a couple of points I will deal with; in the vain hope of putting this to bed.

1) Durhamboy says "..... you cannot receive income from someone in the same household. Of course income can be combined as 7by7 says but that is not the same as income which comes out of the pocket of someone in the same household."

He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used.

Of course, as he acknowledges, sponsor's and applicant's income can be combined to meet the requirement; and they must be living in the same household otherwise the application would be refused!

2) Both durhamboy and Trevor1809 have been banging on about fraudulent documents.

Well, of course people do use fraudulent documents in visa and LTR applications; I'm sure some of them get away with it.

But it's not a case of knocking up a few payslips on a computer and printing them out!

As anyone who has actually read the financial requirement appendix and the specified evidence appendix knows, more than a few payslips and possibly a P60 is required. For starters, bank statements covering the period showing the wages have been paid into the person's bank.

So, whilst it is entirely possible that someone could and would go to the trouble of falsifying all the required evidence, and also entirely possible that they would be successful, doing so in Stuart's situation and those in similar ones would be a complete and utter waste of time.

Plus there is the factor of constantly living in fear of discovery. Even after ILR has been granted, if it is discovered that fraud was used at any stage then that ILR will be cancelled and the person deported with the very real possibility of being banned from the UK in any capacity for life.

This could even happen if the fraud was discovered after the person had been granted British citizenship.

Finally, Stuart, please come back and tell us once your wife has the decision on her FLR application.

In the extremely unlikely event that she is refused because UKVI don't accept that she is legitimately employed and legitimately paid what she says in her application then I certainly offer my deepest and humblest apologies for misinforming you.

When (if) she is granted FLR then I hope that those who have been trying to convince you that what you are doing wont work will do the same.

But I somehow doubt that they will.

Hi 7x7 I certainly will keep you informed, I can assure you I won't believe you have miss advised me... I really can't see any problems arising, at worst re applying with my income alone... But if they did refuse on grounds her income came from a COMPANY Not a person that happens to own 30% of the shares in then I would certainly challenge that decision first as they would not be playing by their own rules.. I asked you if an applicant could apply using their own wages alone and I am grateful for your advise... However I am not worried as her employment is genuine and her rate of pay is easily justified....

Durhamboy, I liked your post because I found it amusing

[durhamboy]

7by7 - I find it absolutely amazing that you think that there is no risk with this proposal despite all the comments made. Not just by me but many others as well. Surely you acknowledge that there is some risk. And why take that risk when stuart almost certainly qualifies by means of his own income.

Regarding section 4.2 you say :-

"He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used."

Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. If you cannot use income from someone in the same household then that must mean that the income of the sponsor cannot be used as the income of the applicant because they live in the same house!

[7by7]

If it can be done then virtually everyone could meet the financial requirements. You wouldn't really need the £10k just get a loan by remortgaging your house.

The capital raised by a remortgage can be used to meet the financial requirement through cash savings.

[stuartsko]

7by7 - I find it absolutely amazing that you think that there is no risk with this proposal despite all the comments made. Not just by me but many others as well. Surely you acknowledge that there is some risk. And why take that risk when stuart almost certainly qualifies by means of his own income.

Regarding section 4.2 you say :-

"He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used."

Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. If you cannot use income from someone in the same household then that must mean that the income of the sponsor cannot be used as the income of the applicant because they live in the same house!

Durhamboy, do you know the difference between a person and a company?????

[durhamboy]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

[el2004]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Why does she need a sponsor in terms of finance if she earns 18600 per year. She's self sufficient in terms of the requirements for the visa.

[stuartsko]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Well if you would like to quote where it says in the rules income cannot be used where a family member owns shares or is a director of that company I will agree with you.. Don't forget in one of my posts I explained we got her spouse visa with my PAYE income from a company I own shares in and also was a director of 6 months prior to the application... They make the rules and as long as I am applying within those rules they can't really refuse Edited December 17, 2015 by stuartsko

[7by7]

7by7 - I find it absolutely amazing that you think that there is no risk with this proposal despite all the comments made. Not just by me but many others as well. Surely you acknowledge that there is some risk. And why take that risk when stuart almost certainly qualifies by means of his own income.

Regarding section 4.2 you say :-

"He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used."

Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. If you cannot use income from someone in the same household then that must mean that the income of the sponsor cannot be used as the income of the applicant because they live in the same house!

I say there is no risk because there isn't any; you and others who have commented that there is are wrong.

I have already explained that when para 4.2 says "others living in the same household" it means people other than the applicant and sponsor! That's why it says "others!"

Definition: different or distinct from the one or ones already mentioned or implied:

OK, maybe it would be clearer if it said "people other than the applicant or sponsor" but, as previously explained, Para 4.1 makes it absolutely clear that the applicant's income can be combined with the sponsor's income in order to meet the requirement.

Therefore "others" in Para 4.2 meets the above definition and does not include applicant or sponsor!

Got it now?

[7by7]

Why does she need a sponsor in terms of finance if she earns 18600 per year. She's self sufficient in terms of the requirements for the visa.

In UK visa and leave to remain applications 'sponsor' does not mean just the financial sponsor.

It also means the person supporting the application, the reason for the application being made if you like; in this case the applicant's husband, Stuart.

In much the same way that a club member would sponsor a friend for membership of that club.

Although that person can also be the financial sponsor as well, of course.

[JAS21]

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

I just came across this topic

I am non resident and not ordinary resident. My wife a Thai national has a UK Passport but does not have an NI Number. We both live in Thailand. I may be able to claim this extra allowance?

I complete an on-line tax return each year ... it's called TaxCalc

[durhamboy]

7by7 - I find it absolutely amazing that you think that there is no risk with this proposal despite all the comments made. Not just by me but many others as well. Surely you acknowledge that there is some risk. And why take that risk when stuart almost certainly qualifies by means of his own income.

Regarding section 4.2 you say :-

"He is wrong; as para 4.2 of the requirement clearly states, you cannot use the income of another person in the same household towards the requirement. It does not state that you cannot use any income you receive from that person; although rent from a lodger can't be used."

Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. If you cannot use income from someone in the same household then that must mean that the income of the sponsor cannot be used as the income of the applicant because they live in the same house!

Durhamboy, do you know the difference between a person and a company?????

Yes I do - not only was I a commercial lawyer but I am also an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries. What a dumb question.

[durhamboy]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Why does she need a sponsor in terms of finance if she earns 18600 per year. She's self sufficient in terms of the requirements for the visa.

She is not self-sufficient because the money comes from stuart's company so it is his money that is paying her!

[el2004]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Why does she need a sponsor in terms of finance if she earns 18600 per year. She's self sufficient in terms of the requirements for the visa.

She is not self-sufficient because the money comes from stuart's company so it is his money that is paying her!

Incorrect.

It's coming from the company. Not stuarts money at all. The money is the companies not stuarts.

[durhamboy]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Well if you would like to quote where it says in the rules income cannot be used where a family member owns shares or is a director of that company I will agree with you.. Don't forget in one of my posts I explained we got her spouse visa with my PAYE income from a company I own shares in and also was a director of 6 months prior to the application... They make the rules and as long as I am applying within those rules they can't really refuse

Yes you got the visa before because it was your income. That's not the same as your proposal here. Here your wife is using your income.

[stuartsko]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Well if you would like to quote where it says in the rules income cannot be used where a family member owns shares or is a director of that company I will agree with you.. Don't forget in one of my posts I explained we got her spouse visa with my PAYE income from a company I own shares in and also was a director of 6 months prior to the application... They make the rules and as long as I am applying within those rules they can't really refuse

Yes you got the visa before because it was your income. That's not the same as your proposal here. Here your wife is using your income.

No it's her income, she earns it Mr commercial lawyer.. Exactly the same situation

[el2004]

Because Stuart does not need to act as a sponsor for his wife she would only be working for xxx Ltd. There would be no need to even list on her application who owns xxx Ltd. The same as if she worked for tesco. She would have to show her personal bank statements slips etc. But not the company as Stuart would not be a sponsor

Firstly, Stuart is the sponsor!

Secondly, it is another matter entirely if stuart does not tell UKVI that he owns the company. But what if they do a company search and find out he is a shareholder and director?

Why does she need a sponsor in terms of finance if she earns 18600 per year. She's self sufficient in terms of the requirements for the visa.

She is not self-sufficient because the money comes from stuart's company so it is his money that is paying her!

If the company owed millions in debts it's the company's debt not stuarts. If there is 10 million in the bank it's the company's money not stuarts. She has an employed job with a Ltd company. That's it really. Like I say she could work for tesco. What if tesco had millions of shareholders which Stuart happened to be one of them with shares worth hardly nothing. Do you really think she would go to tesco and ask for 12 months business bank statements and their vat returns etc.

[durhamboy]

EL you say :-

"Incorrect.

It's coming from the company. Not stuarts money at all. The money is the companies not stuarts."

And stuart owns the company so it is his money. We're going round in circles.