Giant pull their Trailblazer service

[Darren@UptonAccountants]

Giant

Thanks Darren. Can I hold you to that?

Only if you don't get an enquiry!

[Bigbird]

Cortez if they have set up a company for you with you as director etc then you take your company to an accountant and continue just as you were intending to...........

[cortez]

Thanks Big bird for the advice. I will look into that. i wasnt sure if it was an option
After speaking to Giant today (whose phones were on melt down by the way), they kind of confused me by saying well you can go and run your own Ltd company on your own but we won't be responsible for what ever happens or if the inland revenue come after you.

[Cowboy Bob]

we won't be responsible for what ever happens or if the inland revenue come after you.

They wouldn't be anyway. Presumably you have been appointed as a director, so whether Giant were managing it for you or you were doing it yourself, the buck would still stop with you.

[AnotherIan]

Well, there's nothing like some bad legislation to force me into activity. I've got my ltd, just need to sort out the accountancy. What does everyone do regarding insurance, both professional liability and ir35 assuming such a thing still exists, ever existed.

[Bigbird]

They wouldn't be anyway. Presumably you have been appointed as a director, so whether Giant were managing it for you or you were doing it yourself, the buck would still stop with you.

Nope. Under the 3rd party recovery legislation if HMRC are unable to recover a debt from the Ltd or the officers they can transfer the debt to the scheme provider. So if Giant were deemed to be a scheme provider by HMRC and Cortez has closed his co down and blown all his money on assets that cannot be liquidated Giant would be the next step to recover the balance of any debt from.

The catch 22 being that as an owner-managed Ltd Co he may well be outside IR35 and operating perfectly legitimately but if Giant as a deemed scheme provider are involved in any way with the operation of his company he will still be subject to employed PAYE/NIC levels.

[vyas]

After speaking to Giant today (whose phones were on melt down by the way), they kind of confused me by saying well you can go and run your own Ltd company on your own but we won't be responsible for what ever happens or if the inland revenue come after you.

The very fact that you have set up a limited company, where you are the director (and if you have had a company sec appointed), it means it is your company and you can choose to operate it the way you like. Giant were only an expensive support structure under their trailblazer.

so them and find a decent accountant... if you had giant's address as the registered address, it may be worth changing it to another address... i am sure there wll be a provision to do so

good luck

[Newby]

Cortez you hit the nail on the head as to why Giant have pulled the plug. They were going to set a pseudo business bank account up for you. I am guessing slightly here, but they were still going to push your monies(deductions) round for you, and make payments to the revenue. It just isnt a true business scenario. So once the budget speech of 21st March confirmed what most had been saying already (touch the money and you are an MSC) then Giant had gone so far down the banking product that they had to make a big decision. There was no way they could U turn in time without continuing to be an MSC. I agree with most of the comments on this particular thread, but there aspects to the legislation that makes you slightly uneasy.

[TheJanitor]

Will the IR be providing a list of 'scheme' providers?

I used SJD to form my Ltd company, I still use SJD as my appointed agent. Although in all respects I manage my company and certainly would not consider myself part of a scheme there are some things that worry me.

Firstly the size of SJD makes it an obvious target.
Secondly I pay a monthly rate to SJD, not just an adhoc price for services as they happen. (looks a bit schemish doesn't it!)

I would contact SJD directly but they're bound to make me feel more comfortable which is not necessarily what I want. I'm not dissing SJD, there must be many similar accountancy setups.

[Cowboy Bob]

Firstly the size of SJD makes it an obvious target.
Secondly I pay a monthly rate to SJD, not just an adhoc price for services as they happen. (looks a bit schemish doesn't it!)

The way I understand what's going on (IANAA, IANAL etc) is that there's a simple test for whether it's a scheme or not, and that is does the money from the client go straight into you company bank account from the agency or does it go through a 3rd party first. With SJD (as with any other accountantcy firm) your company invoices the agency and you pay them a monthly fee for payroll processing out of company funds. With Giant, they would have invoiced the agency, taken a cut out of the money and deposited the remainder into you company bank account. That is the difference IMO.