Should you check to make sure your employer is paying you the correct superannuation amount? [Australia]
As poolie mentioned, you should get online access to your account. This will do a couple of things: Also, consolidate any super you have with different companies. Now. Yes, there are checks and balances.  Employers can be, and have been, prosecuted for failing to pay super before the statutory timeline, which is three months from the pay date. However, it is still in your interests to check for yourself.  The most common point for missing super to be discovered is when the company goes broke, at which point it's too late for you.  What you should do is  Check on your payslips that the right amount is allocated to super.  It should be 9% of gross, plus any salary sacrifice or additional component. Check your super fund's half-yearly statements line up the deductions given on your payslip. Consider getting online access to your super account so you can check more quickly. If something is missing, call your super fund and/or payroll office. Resources:
The Australian Tax Office website shows Tax Rates for individuals based on the income earned in the Financial Year. Calculating what you'll be taxed For instance, it show that every dollar you earn up to $18,200, you are not taxed. Every dollar over that, up to $37k is taxed at 19 cents. And so on.. Example 1 So as an example, if your income for the year is $25,000 you will be taxed $1292. Working: Here's how it's look if you were doing it in a spreadsheet using the Tax Rates table on the ATO website as a guide:  Example 2 If you income is $50,000, it'd look like this:  Withholding Your employer is obligated to remove the taxable part from your wage each time your paid. They do that using the calculation above.  If at the end of the financial year, the ATO determines that too much as been withheld (ie. you've claimed deductions that've reduce your taxable income to less than what your actual income is), that's when you may be eligible for a refund. If your employer didn't withhold enough or you had income from other sources that haven't been taxed already, then you may actually need to pay rather than expecting a refund. Your question If you earn $18,200 in the year and for some reason your employer did withhold tax from your pay, say $2,000, then yes, you'll get all that $2,000 back as a refund since the Tax Rate for income up to $18,200 is $0.00. If you earned $18,201 and your employer withheld $2000, you'd get $1999.81 back as a refund ($2000 - 19c). You have to pay 19c tax on that $1 over $18,200. I don't know Australian law, but I will give my US perspective here.  The custom in the US is for officers and directors to be indemnified by the corporation, and that LLCs have an even broader power to indemnify (even to remove the duty of loyalty!).  Moreover, directors will typically be able to purchase D&O insurance to protect them from loss in the event of liability. For US corporations (not LLCs), the duty of care (prudence) requires that directors behave responsibly in weighing major decisions, and consult experts and specialists before coming to rash decisions.  It usually becomes a court case in the context of a large public company in the midst of an acquisition event.  The only people with standing (in the US) are shareholders.  If all the other shareholders are directors, then it may be hard for them to blame you. Additionally, if you are concerned about the propriety of your actions, there may be sources to rely on.  First, discussion with your fellow directors can be a helpful guide (though will not usually immunize you from any accusation of wrongdoing), and disclosure tends to cure almost any accusation of breaching the duty of loyalty.  Second, boards often secure the advice of legal counsel, and sometimes bring on lawyers as members or will outright hire counsel for the board.  Third, there may be services that will provide you with generic advice (e.g. UK Companies House and US-based IOD), which might set you at ease a little bit. I don't know the details of Australian law, as I say.  But my sense of common law countries is that, like the US, they are primarily concerned about negligence (incompetently or imprudently neglecting to understand the business and make informed decisions), disloyalty (fraudulently engaging in self-interested transactions that either hurt the company or should have been offered to the company), and recklessness (not bothering to seek out information).  As long as you are active, informed, engaged, and not engaging in secret deals outside the company (especially deals where either side is competing with the company), then that would be more than sufficient under the US standard. If you are concerned about liability, then inquire into indemnifications by the company (in the US, the company can usually pay all legal costs of directors), insurance, and legal counsel.  I imagine your business partners are no more savvy than you are.  My impression is you are overreacting to relatively rare and exotic expression of corporate law (at least in the US). But I'll close by repeating that I don't know Australian corporate law. "I feel that getting money sooner than later is always advantageous. If I offered you the choice between getting: Which option would you take? I would take the last option. And for the same reason, from a purely-numbers point of view, I would argue that getting paid biweekly is preferable (assuming the the annual salary is pro-rated fairly, and barring any compulsive spending habits). Your calculations suggest to me that they are trying to answer the question, ""Looking at a single year or month (or some other fixed amount of time) in a vacuum, is there any financial benefit to being paid bi-weekly over monthly?"". The analysis seems to be focusing on comparing the two pay schedules on a month-by-month basis, noting when one is paid bi-weekly, some months you get paid more times than the other. However, one could also compare the two pay schedules on a fortnight-by-fortnight basis, and note that when one is paid monthly, many fortnights you don't get paid at all, and some you get paid a lot. Or one could compare the two pay schedules on an hour-by-hour basis, too. But in the long run, the money adds up to be the same amount. I prefer getting it as soon as I can." "If you're not getting pay stubs showing withholding then you're working ""under the table"", which (a) is illegal, (b) is a deal for the employer because they don't have to pay any of the employment taxes including their share of your SocSec and (c) is screwing you because you'll still need to pay taxes on every dime they pay your but won't have anything set aside for it unless you're doing that yourself. Which I'm guessing you're not.  Call the local labor board or whatever." "Rather than reading news stories, why not go straight to the HMRC source? https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-your-private-pension/lifetime-allowance Seems your lifetime allowance measurement differs based on whether your pension is defined contribution or defined benefit.  The latter seems fairly simple at 20 times first year payout, though the HMRC usage of the word ""usually"" is disconcerting.    The language for defined contribution implies they check multiple times for violation of the LFA, just like you've pointed out.  Of note, they specifically list: Note that you can also file to ""protect"" a larger LFA that you might have previously had.  This generally means not contributing any longer to your pension though.  There is info on the page linked above." "We cannot know if you owe them anything. But at the least I would expect that they don't just say ""you owe us"" but ""we found out that we were supposed to pay you $X, but we paid you $Y which is more"", and then we can go from there.  There are things like ""we should have paid you $12.20 per hour for the last year, but we paid you $12.50 per hour"", where you can tell them that by paying you that rate, you assumed it was correct one, you wouldn't have worked for less, so they effectively gave you a raise. On the other hand, if they say ""you worked here for 38 hours a week, but we paid you for 40 hours a week"", and you did indeed work only 38 hours, then most likely they are correct." A true story, from a friend's company, one of the largest electronics company in the world.  The company decided that if the difference is less than $25,000, then ignore it. And went on to fire many people in accounting.  Six months later on, one old-timer found many many reports that show less than $25,000 difference.  Do you understand what happened here? I'm assuming your talking USA. There are two ways to look. If you know you should pay on the cap gains, the best way to handle that separately from your salary is to file a quarterly tax payment.  That, I understand, is what the self-employed have to do. I'm in the situation where at some point, probably this year, the company that employs me will be bought out, and I will owe capital gains taxes on my shares gobbled up in the buy-out.  It's a cash-for-stock transaction.  So, in my case, I've just adjusted my W-4 to take advantage of the safe-harbor provision related to taxes I payed in 2016 and my salary.  The details vary depending on your situation, but in my case, I've calculated what it will take in W-4 allowances to make sure I pay 110% of my 2016 tax payment (after refund).  I'm not worrying about what the actual taxes on those shares of company stock will be, because I've met the rules for safe-harbor. Safe harbor just means that they can't penalize you for under-withholding or underpayment.  It doesn't mean I won't have to write a check on april 15. Exactly.  Bosses/managers often frame things in terms of 'you should be thankful for us giving you a paycheck each week' when by definition, you are being paid less than your labour, strictly speaking, is worth.  ie, on the whole what you do is paying the company MORE than you receive.    Personally, I'm fine with this trade off, within reason.  I get to go home at 5, and if the phone rings I ignore it if I like.  If the place folds, no one is coming after me for a share of the company's debts, either.  But don't let anyone blow smoke that by paying you they are being generous. I actually think your boss is creating a problem for you. Of course it's taxable. The things IRS will look at (and they very well might, as it does stand out) what kind of payment is that. Why did it not go through payroll? The company may be at risk here for avoiding FICA/FUTA/workers' compensation insurance/State payroll taxes. Some are mandatory, and cannot be left to the employee to pay. On your side it raises your taxable income without the appropriate withholding, you may end up paying underpayment penalties for that (that is why you've been suggested to keep proofs of when you were paid). Also, it's employment income. If it is not wages - you're liable for self-employment taxes (basically the portion of FICA that the employer didn't pay, and your own FICA withholding). When you deposit the check is of no matter to the IRS, its when you got it that determines when you should declare the income. You don't have a choice there. I suggest asking the company payroll why it didn't go through them, as it may be a problem for you later on. I know the general principles of acting as a director in a company, and am familiar with the rights of shareholders. In the last ten years or so, I believe Australia has introduced legislation that strongly punishes those directors who do not act in a professional or prudent manner. While I will of course attempt to fulfill the duties required - I am new to conducting business at this level, and am concerned about mistakenly breaching some unknown rule/law and being subject to repercussions that I just don't know about. As you have already stated, the key to being director in a company is the additional responsibility. Legally you can be held in breach. At the same time you will be able to influence your decision much better if you a director and thus safeguard your interest. If you are only a shareholder, you cannot be held responsible for decision by company, individual malpractice may still be applicable, but this is less of a risk. However over a period of time, the board can take certain decision that may marginalize your holding in the company. Here are your options. While you remain an Australian citizen you cannot withdraw super just because you are residing overseas. You could renounce your citizenship - just make sure you have another one to fall back on. Cutting 25% from pensions is a big deal. This is why I'm going to get out of the company pension. If the money isn't mine, what is it? Are they giving me more return on my interest than normal to make up for the fact they can decide to back out of the agreement at any point? No. Yes we do still get paid. When someone get's a burnout, they pay six weeks. There's a lot of pseudo-sickness anyway, and people living unhealthy lives and getting sick through that, so i wouldn't actually find the australian system a problem..although you only have to get really sick once to feel it hard.. In Australia anyone thinking about retirement should be concentrating on superannuation. Contribution is compulsory (I think the current minimum contribution rate is 9.5% of salary) and both contributions and investment returns are very tax efficient. The Government site is quite comprehensive - http://www.australia.gov.au/topics/economy-money-and-tax/superannuation - have a read and come back with any specific questions.