| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 41:11:38 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,724 |
Can legitimate UK companies with audited accounts and two named
directors really report that they employ 0 people (including directors)?
(actually number of employees is shown as a "-" character in the filing)
I thought that the directors were automatically counted as employees of
a limited company even if they take no salary. Am I wrong about that?
I'm investigating a tangled web of related holdings that are using the "exemption provided by para 33.1A of FRS 102 and has not disclosed transactions with other group members, which are wholly owned
subsidiaries". Statement lifted directly from audited accounts.
Looking at FRS102 my reading is that they are not actually compelled to include this statement under UK law.
About 50 such companies in total all with more or less the same
boilerplate accounts filed with very slight differences (I may not have found them all either).
Can legitimate UK companies with audited accounts and two named
directors really report that they employ 0 people (including directors)?
(actually number of employees is shown as a "-" character in the filing)
I thought that the directors were automatically counted as employees of
a limited company even if they take no salary. Am I wrong about that?
I'm investigating a tangled web of related holdings that are using the "exemption provided by para 33.1A of FRS 102 and has not disclosed transactions with other group members, which are wholly owned
subsidiaries". Statement lifted directly from audited accounts.
Looking at FRS102 my reading is that they are not actually compelled to include this statement under UK law.
About 50 such companies in total all with more or less the same
boilerplate accounts filed with very slight differences (I may not have found them all either).
On 13/10/2025 14:30, Martin Brown wrote:
Can legitimate UK companies with audited accounts and two named
directors really report that they employ 0 people (including directors)?
(actually number of employees is shown as a "-" character in the filing)
I thought that the directors were automatically counted as employees of
a limited company even if they take no salary. Am I wrong about that?
I'm investigating a tangled web of related holdings that are using the
"exemption provided by para 33.1A of FRS 102 and has not disclosed
transactions with other group members, which are wholly owned
subsidiaries". Statement lifted directly from audited accounts.
Looking at FRS102 my reading is that they are not actually compelled to
include this statement under UK law.
About 50 such companies in total all with more or less the same
boilerplate accounts filed with very slight differences (I may not have
found them all either).
Directors are not automatically employees, although most small companies
will pay the Director (if also a shareholder) up to the personal
threshold under PAYE, and the remainer in dividends, in which case they
would be.
On 2025-10-13, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
Can legitimate UK companies with audited accounts and two named
directors really report that they employ 0 people (including directors)?
(actually number of employees is shown as a "-" character in the filing)
I thought that the directors were automatically counted as employees of
a limited company even if they take no salary. Am I wrong about that?
I'm investigating a tangled web of related holdings that are using the
"exemption provided by para 33.1A of FRS 102 and has not disclosed
transactions with other group members, which are wholly owned
subsidiaries". Statement lifted directly from audited accounts.
Looking at FRS102 my reading is that they are not actually compelled to
include this statement under UK law.
About 50 such companies in total all with more or less the same
boilerplate accounts filed with very slight differences (I may not have
found them all either).
In the filed accounts for a company of which I am a director, but which
pays no salaries to anyone and which therefore does not file any PAYE information with HMRC, I notice that the "Notes to the Financial
Statements" which accompany the statutory accounts (which fall under
the "full exemption" rule) says "Employees: 1". But that might just be
an assumption by the accountant, I don't know if he would be happy to
reduce that to zero if I asked him to.
I'd also point out that companies can be directors, so if all the
directors of a company were themselves companies then presumably "zero"
would be the only possible number of director-employees.