• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Any Idea about sundaysolutions - Accountant Company

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Was sent this as an example of the risk I'd be taking if I went Ltd and then got investigated:....
    Sent by whom? Sunday Solutions?

    They're trying to scare you into joining. I am not impressed by the bully-boy business model, but it does seem to be working for them.

    There is no more risk being Ltd - indeed there is less risk as you don't have some middle man between you and your money. Ask people around here about companies going bust and the £1000's owed suddenly disappearing.

    All you need to do is:

    1) Go Ltd;
    2) Get a good accountant (who do 1. for you for a nominal sum);
    3) Join the PCG (Plus subscription) that will sort out any HMRC investigations for you.

    And that's it...
    "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
    - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by OrangeHopper
      Malvolio, I'm so glad there is someone on here that knows everything.

      ... it's the agency that's potentially liable, not the client ...

      So that I may be educated by the master, please point me at the relevant source.
      This is a basic point of law controlling how and why we have Limited Companies. If you don't understand that, fine, but I suggest you go search for s75/77 of ITEPA on HMRC's website, which is the latest edition covering what was originally S134c of the Finance Act and read it for yourself. Eventually (it's not exactly light reading) you will come to the answer I gave.
      Blog? What blog...?

      Comment


        #23
        Sorry but that doesn't answer my question.

        Where does it say the AGENT can be held responsible? Did you notice AGENT is in big letters. That is the important word! The agent is not acting as an employer!

        Composite - yes.
        Umbrella - yes.
        Limited company - yes.
        Client (as last resort) - yes.

        Agent - no.

        At one time is was self-employed or limited. Clients could be liable if you went self-employed but the IR thought you weren't. Hence clients wouldn't touch us unless we were limited.

        God, this is hard work.
        Last edited by OrangeHopper; 1 July 2007, 14:46.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by OrangeHopper
          Sorry but that doesn't answer my question.

          Where does it say the AGENT can be held responsible? Did you notice AGENT is in big letters. That is the important word! The agent is not acting as an employer!

          Composite - yes.
          Umbrella - yes.
          Limited company - yes.
          Client (as last resort) - yes.

          Agent - no.

          At one time is was self-employed or limited. Clients could be liable if you went self-employed but the IR thought you weren't. Hence clients wouldn't touch us unless we were limited.

          God, this is hard work.
          No it's not, it's just you aren't listening.

          Your contract is with the agent (sorry, the AGENT), not the end client. And it's nothing to do with employment at all.

          S134c was brought in specifically to close a loophope and prevent an SE worker not paying taxation and leaving nobody liable: HMG didn't like that so put the liability on the next legal entity in the contractual chain, which would have been the agency but is now YourCo.

          So I'm sorry if you don't believe me, or can't be arsed to go look it up yourself, but them's the facts.
          Blog? What blog...?

          Comment


            #25
            So let me get this right.

            I say the limited is liable. You say the limited is liable.

            I say the agent isn't. You now say the agent isn't.

            Ok, I'll just continue being an idiot and hide in the shadow of your brilliance.

            Comment


              #26
              Fronm your earlier post, that I tried to answer...

              Originally posted by orangehooper
              Agencies don't generally care about your arrangements because they can't be held responsible for any taxes you may owe.
              Yes they can. In fact, without YourCo, they are totally liable

              Originally posted by orangehooper
              You can't work as a sole trader because an IT contractor does not fit into the definition of a self-employed person.
              Yes they can, but agencies won't deal with them.

              Originally posted by orangehooper
              If the IR thinks you aren't self-employed they can demand the difference in NI from the client, hence the client's reluctance to engage you as a self-employed person.
              You don't have a contract with the client. They are not liable unless you are engaged directly by them, which isn't what you were arguing about.

              I give up, I have better things to do with a Sunday afternoon in the rain.
              Blog? What blog...?

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by OrangeHopper
                So let me get this right.

                I say the limited is liable. You say the limited is liable.

                I say the agent isn't. You now say the agent isn't.

                Ok, I'll just continue being an idiot and hide in the shadow of your brilliance.
                Your Ltd will be liable, but if you do not have a Ltd (i.e. you are a sole trader) the AGENT will be liable. Hence why agencies don't like working with sole traders.

                Assuming that you are a Sole Trader, the end client won't be held liable for tax/NI that you do not pay because you don't have a contract with the end client, you have a contract with the AGENT. This is the main reason that contractors tend to operate via Limited companies and not as sole traders because agencies generally speaking won't touch a sole trader with a tulipty stick due to the potential liability.

                Have a read through what malvolio has said again, he is bang on the money, you just don't appear to be comprehending what he has said.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Ok.

                  Yet again I'm wrong so I will now keep well clear of this forum in case I provide yet more inaccurate information.

                  Not sure why I got involved. Thought I had learned this lesson before.

                  Bye.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by OrangeHopper
                    Where does it say the AGENT can be held responsible? Did you notice AGENT is in big letters. That is the important word! The agent is not acting as an employer!
                    Surely it should be an EMPLOYMENT BUSINESS? Where is Denny, anyway?
                    Best Forum Advisor 2014
                    Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
                    Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by malvolio
                      Yes they can. In fact, without YourCo, they are totally liable
                      There is another issue which can impact the client. In the event of a status enquiry in a S/E contractor-agent-client arrangement it is possible the contractor could be determined to be an actual employee of anybody in the chain - even without a contract beyond the agent. In this case an even larger bill can arrive because anything paid to the contractor is assumed to be net of all deductions.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X