I'd take that with a pinch of salt as the accounts are unaudited.From companies house...I’m thinking the Loose Women salary gets routed through Mark’s Ltd company...it reduces tax...quite normal for ‘entertainers’ to do this.
My thoughts on their financials: the accounts are quite sloppy - they have staff costs, but the disclosure note says they don't have any staff, which is not possible. Even if Nadia were working as a contractor, that wouldn't be classified as a staff cost.
Also, the 'profit' figure doesn't mean the £76k is theirs for the taking.
Yes, they have £76k profit. But they've only paid themselves £25k in salary, and have left a profit to then suffer corporation tax. Why would they do that - just pay corporation tax for no reason? Surely they'd take out as much salary as possible? Why would they want to retain a profit? If they take it out as salary next year, they're then paying income tax on top of the corporation tax from the year before.
The answer? They don't have enough cash to pay out any more than they already have - they have £26k of 'current assets' (let's assume all cash) and £25k of creditors (money they owe).
They've taken out all the money they can (£25k in salary) and left enough to cover what they owe. Their salary is down from £50k in the prior year.
Last edited: