The balancing allowance is whatever CTC is left after the components above. If it is negative, the shares you entered exceed the CTC.
Structure is a policy decision and the statutory rates are not ours to state — enter the ones that currently apply to you and confirm them with the relevant authority. This shows the arithmetic of a structure you define; it does not advise on what the structure should be, and the basic share in particular has consequences you should take advice on.
Splits a cost to company into the components of a structure you define.
Every figure it produces is arithmetic on what you enter, and the working is shown line by line rather than summarised into a single number.
Replace the defaults with your own figures. They are examples chosen to make the shape obvious, not benchmarks — using them unchanged tells you about a company that is not yours.
The lines beneath the headline are the useful part: they show which input is driving the result, which is what makes the answer arguable in a good way.
Structure is a policy decision and the statutory rates are not ours to state — enter the ones that currently apply to you and confirm them with the relevant authority. This shows the arithmetic of a structure you define; it does not advise on what the structure should be, and the basic share in particular has consequences you should take advice on.
Where two readings of the same question exist, both are shown rather than one being chosen for you. That is deliberate — the difference between them is usually the thing worth discussing.
If a figure looks wrong, change the input you least believe and watch what moves. That is faster than checking the arithmetic.
No. The tool runs in the page, nothing is sent anywhere, and there is no follow-up.
No. They are examples chosen to make the shape clear. Use your own figures.
It is stated in the working shown beneath the result, so you can check it rather than trust it.
Half an hour on your own figures, and an honest answer about the parts Treepie does not improve.