Going direct for four weeks

[joeDaddy]

I have just spoken to a client who would like me to go direct for about four weeks @ 280/pd.

I don’t have a ltd company, what would be the best way to go?

Thank you in advanced

[northernladuk]

Via an agent/brolly

[joeDaddy]

Thanks for your reply

I don’t mind using an umbrella as it short term.

But when I spoke to the client; they just like me don’t want to use an agent
Is there any other way?

[badger7579]

Can they put you through their own payroll as PAYE. Not very tax efficient but in the short term it might be an option. Personally I'd be using my Ltd with a direct contract.

[d000hg]

Just bill them directly, invoices and contracts between <your-name> and <client-name>. Perfectly legal and normal if they are happy with it and you are happy they aren't dodgy. Maybe worth supplying your own contract, from PCG perhaps.

You are allowed to trade under a 'business name' without a company as long as you make it clear you are "John Smith trading as John Smith Consultancy", IIRC.

[VectraMan]

I would just go for the umbrella. You could do it yourself, but then you're a sole trader with the extra tax hassles that involves.

The more important question is is this a one off, or do you think you're going to look for another contract after the four weeks? If the latter, start your Ltd. now.

[ASB]

From a view of being most cost effective if you can just bill them directly it would probably be most efficient. They mau be reluctant to allow this - it is their choice. The potential impact on them is that you should ensure you pass the IR56 S/E tests.

From a view of taxation you can simply put it in the other income box on you tax return, though you probably should reigster as self employed with HMRC and file the relevant reports with them.

[stek]

Self-employed, no question. If there was no Agencies Act I think the whole contracting world would go sole-trader.

[ASB]

Self-employed, no question. If there was no Agencies Act I think the whole contracting world would go sole-trader.

Doubtful. The pronlem with S/E is that if somebody fails a status enquiry then they become the clients actual employee, thus there is risk to the client.

[stek]

Doubtful. The pronlem with S/E is that if somebody fails a status enquiry then they become the clients actual employee, thus there is risk to the client.

Whilst I concur, I would hope this sort or S/E would fall under the same sort of cards in (or is it out?) the building industry uses; short/medium term projects, one project at a time.

I dunno tho - long time since I was ltd or s/e, I went llp last time and still paying the price....