umbrella vs consultancy - T&S expenses

[breaktwister]

I'm very pissed off that my other thread about the definition of an "employment intermediary" was locked. Yes, I missed one sentence from the Crunch article about off-payroll, but that does not mean it was a troll topic.

The question is "How can a consultancy firm deduct employee T&S as a business expense where an umbrella company cannot?"

Some answers on the other thread were that a consultancy is not in the business of providing labour. But neither is an umbrella company. No end-client engages an umbrella company to provide labour for them. In fact, a consultancy firm is more likely to be in the business of providing labour than an umbrella.

What is stopping an umbrella company from grouping their individual clients into substructures according to service provided and declaring those substructures as "consultancies" in an identical structure to any other consultancy in business?

All individuals would be on payroll of course but the crucial difference is the allowance of consultancy business expenses including T&S.

If we are going to be forced onto a payroll somewhere, the next best thing is to work through a consultancy so as to offset T&S.

[northernladuk]

I'm very pissed off that my other thread about the definition of an "employment intermediary" was locked.

Hope you are prepared to be doubly pissed off in the same day

I'd have some hankies to hand if I were you.....

[eek]

You know what I'm going to go for 104...

[MrMarkyMark]

105

[SueEllen]

Breaktwister there is no question in your post so why start a new thread?

[malvolio]

I'm very pissed off that my other thread about the definition of an "employment intermediary" was locked. Yes, I missed one sentence from the Crunch article about off-payroll, but that does not mean it was a troll topic.

The question is "How can a consultancy firm deduct employee T&S as a business expense where an umbrella company cannot?"

Some answers on the other thread were that a consultancy is not in the business of providing labour. But neither is an umbrella company. No end-client engages an umbrella company to provide labour for them. In fact, a consultancy firm is more likely to be in the business of providing labour than an umbrella.

What is stopping an umbrella company from grouping their individual clients into substructures according to service provided and declaring those substructures as "consultancies" in an identical structure to any other consultancy in business?

All individuals would be on payroll of course but the crucial difference is the allowance of consultancy business expenses including T&S.

If we are going to be forced onto a payroll somewhere, the next best thing is to work through a consultancy so as to offset T&S.

Jeez... You are either a very inept troll or are incapable of even the simplest understanding.

What does an Umbrella do other than facilitate the supply employed labour to a third party?

If your role is deemed by the end client - the one paying the money, ultimately - to be a manpower replacement and therefore IR35 caught, no number of intermediary (that word again...) companies will make a blind bit of difference, you will be paying full PAYE and NICs.

So altogether another pointless contribution. Haven't you got a job to do?

[northernladuk]

You know what I'm going to go for 104...

He's there now. I'm going to engage him on his question to get him past you and MrMarky and I'll have him fall on his sword at 109. Like taking candy from a baby...

[northernladuk]

I'm very pissed off that my other thread about the definition of an "employment intermediary" was locked. Yes, I missed one sentence from the Crunch article about off-payroll, but that does not mean it was a troll topic.

The question is "How can a consultancy firm deduct employee T&S as a business expense where an umbrella company cannot?"

Some answers on the other thread were that a consultancy is not in the business of providing labour. But neither is an umbrella company. No end-client engages an umbrella company to provide labour for them. In fact, a consultancy firm is more likely to be in the business of providing labour than an umbrella.

What is stopping an umbrella company from grouping their individual clients into substructures according to service provided and declaring those substructures as "consultancies" in an identical structure to any other consultancy in business?

All individuals would be on payroll of course but the crucial difference is the allowance of consultancy business expenses including T&S.

If we are going to be forced onto a payroll somewhere, the next best thing is to work through a consultancy so as to offset T&S.

I see your point. Could you tell me what solution would work best?... In 5 posts please.

[NotAllThere]

I'm very pissed off that my other thread about the definition of an "employment intermediary" was locked.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.