The Director's Dividend and the £100,000 Trap
Priya is a sole director and 100% shareholder of a personal service company. For 2024/25 she has already taken a salary of £12,570 (fully covered by the employer's and employee's NI thresholds and her personal allowance) and dividends of £30,000. Her accountant has modelled an additional £20,000 of distributable profit and proposes a further dividend. Priya also has £6,000 of savings interest and receives £4,000 of rental profit after expenses. She has no other income. She has asked whether taking the extra £20,000 as a dividend is 'obviously best' and what she should watch for. Her spouse has no income and no shareholding.
1. Compute Priya's marginal effective tax rate on the additional £20,000 dividend, showing how the personal allowance taper and dividend bands interact, and state whether the dividend is 'obviously best'.
Read the worked answer
Build total income before the extra dividend. Salary £12,570 + dividends £30,000 + savings £6,000 + rental £4,000 = £52,570.
Adjusted net income for the taper = total income less gross personal pension contributions and gift aid (none) = £52,570. Adding £20,000 gives £72,570 - still below £100,000, so no personal allowance taper applies. (Flag this: if she had been within £20,000 of £100,000 the effective rate would spike.)
Dividend bands. The dividend nil-rate band of £500 is already used against the first £500 of the £30,000 dividends. Remaining dividend income £29,500 sits in the basic-rate band. Basic-rate band ceiling £37,700; salary uses £12,570, leaving £25,130 of band. So of the existing dividends, £25,130 is taxed at 8.75% and £4,370 has already spilled into the higher-rate band at 33.75%.
The extra £20,000 is therefore entirely higher-rate dividend: £20,000 × 33.75% = £6,750, i.e. a marginal rate of 33.75%.
Is it 'obviously best'? No single answer is 'obvious'. At 33.75% the dividend is still cheaper than a bonus, which bears employer's NI (13.8%) plus employee's NI and income tax at 40%, an effective combined cost well above 33.75% per £ of net cash. But the comparison must be made on cash retained after all taxes at company and shareholder level, not headline rates. The judgement: the dividend is likely preferable to a bonus at this margin, but the advice should quantify the bonus alternative before asserting it.
2. Priya mentions her spouse has no income. Explain the tax issues that arise if she transfers 20% of her shares to him and pays him a dividend, and identify the risk that would change your answer.
Read the worked answer
Mechanics. A spouse can transfer shares between them at no gain/no loss (TCGA 1992 s58), so no CGT arises on the transfer itself. Dividends paid thereafter are taxed on the recipient. The spouse's £12,570 personal allowance and £500 dividend nil-rate band would shelter the first slice, and the remainder would fall in his basic-rate band at 8.75% - a genuine saving versus Priya's 33.75%.
The risk - settlements legislation (ITTOIA 2005 Pt 5 Ch 5). An outright, unconditional gift of shares with genuine commercial substance is generally outside the settlements rules. But if the arrangement is a bounty-focussed gift with retained benefit - for example Priya continues to control the company, the shares carry no real rights, or there is an understanding that the income comes back to her - the dividend can be taxed on her under the settlements rules. HMRC's 'income shifting' approach and the Arctic Systems line of cases make this a genuine judgement area, not a mechanical one.
Practical safeguards: the transfer must be outright and unconditional; the shares should carry full voting and capital rights; the spouse should be a genuine shareholder; and the company's articles and any shareholders' agreement must not undermine the gift.
Conclusion: the planning can work, but the answer changes if the gift is not genuine and unconditional - in which case the tax saving is reversed and interest and penalties may follow.