Hiring self employed contractor

[Moscow Mule]

I am not saying it can't be one of self employment, just (very) unlikely that it will be. The guide I mentioned can easily be found on HMRC web site, it really is a good starting point. IR35 is irrelevant effectively in the scenario you describe. Either he is your actual employee or he is self employed.

ir56.pdf doesn't seem to be available any more...

[Limited]

Ok. I've done some reading around and it looks like the self-employed option can't really be done along the lines of what we are looking for.

So we are looking at additional costs of 12.8% employers NI + a small fee from our accountants for adding to the payroll + hassle and headaches of employment contracts, sick pay, insurance etc

Or

Using an umbrella which will save us the small fee from the accountants and the headaches and insurance issues but cost £100ish per month. (Employers NI to be paid by the contractor rather than us, but we would have to sort out some arrangement about that)

Does that sound right? Thanks

[saigon triumph]

I had a similar problem but i was the self employed person. It was only a short contract and i wanted to stay self employed so as not to have IR35 problems.

If the person wants to stay self employed then i suggest trying an alternative umbrella type company such as the one i used www.mitsulimited.co.uk. They offer a limited Co solution for self employed people which would allow you to offset the problems of dealing with self employed but still enable you to hire them. I managed to split the cost with the client which they were happy with as they didn't have to pay N.I as you said. It also solved the problem that i didn't have to be employed by them.

[Board Game Geek]

OP : When you say "he" in your previous posts, I take it either this position is part of a positive gender discrimination role or you were just using the pronoun loosely ?

[Limited]

BGG: No, I used the pronoun "he" because the guy we want to hire is male. Useful post though. Thanks.

[Gonzo]

<snip>

You must really like this Matsui company because you seem to mention them in just about every post you make.

[centurian]

- as TykeMerc said, we don't want a right of subsititution

Why not allow him to have the right, thus keeping him happy, but drop hints that if he uses it - his termination clause will be invoked. That's the kind of stand-off that most of our substitution clauses are anyway. Often if we actually did send in someone else, we would get a phone call from ClientCo saying "get the tulipe back here, or you're sacked" kind of message.

HMRC also know this full well, which is why they try to drive a wedge into the clause and work out if you could actually, realistically substitute without causing a stink. In the most cases the answer is probably no, but HMRC need to prove this.