Post
by marcnath » Wed May 09, 2018 9:49 am
The immigration rules does not specify that an entrepreneur should not be paid.
In fact, when it comes to settlement, it would be necessary for the applicant to have some salary or other source of income to show they would not be depending on benefits.
The only clause that applies to this issue is related to investments.
clause 245D (c)(ii) says:
(ii) ‘Invested’ means that the funds have been invested into a business or businesses which the applicant is running as self-employed or as a director or member of a partnership. ‘Invested’ or ‘spent’ excludes spending on:
(1) the applicant’s own remuneration,
(2) buying any business from a previous owner, where the money ultimately goes to that previous owner (irrespective of whether it is received or held directly or indirectly by that previous owner) rather than into the business being purchased (This applies regardless of whether the money is channelled through the business en route to the previous owner, for example by means of the applicant or business purchasing ‘goodwill’ or other assets which were previously part of the business.),
(3) investing in businesses, other than those which the applicant is running as self-employed or as a director, and
(4) any spending which is not directly for the purpose of establishing or running the applicant’s own business or businesses.
This is clearly in a section that is set to ensure the investment is used for the right purposes, so people don't beat the system by investing the money and taking it out as salary.
So, there is no doubt that you can take salary if it is not from the investment
My comments are in no way meant to be advisory. I have no professional knowledge of immigration. These are based on my own experience, convictions and personal interpretation of publicly available information.