Quotation of partners in a limited company with degree of kinship
My family and I are thinking of setting up a limited consulting email list company with a 25% stake for each of us, where only one of us would be the administrator and the other 3 would be workers. 3 of us live under the same roof (parents + 1 of the siblings), under this assumption should we all pay RETA contributions?
In this case, we have two different situations when selecting the contribution regime. The first case would be the percentage of participation of each of them in the company, which as we can see, does not exceed 33% and therefore, it could be admitted that only the administrator of the company contributes to the self-employed regime as long as there is no effective control , as we can see in this summary table of the contribution obligations.
However, in this case, we find that there are family ties and that there is no effective separation of the partners , so Social Security considers two variants:
All family members living in the same home must pay contributions as self-employed workers, a position held by most provincial delegations, given that the company is considered a vehicle that would not break with the direct control of the employer.
You can opt for contributions under the general scheme, but excluding contributions for unemployment , given that working partners with decision-making capacity in the company would not have this right to unemployment if they leave the employment relationship with the company, if their children are under 30 years old.
