Agent asking for NI number before next payment

[Unix]

TL;DR

So yes or no?

[Paddy]

Sorry but HMRC are quite clear that it does apply to PSC's:

From here: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...vice-companies

You must select the reason why you didn’t operate PAYE on the workers payments from these options:

A: Self-employed
B: Partnership
C: Limited liability partnership
D: Limited company including personal service companies
E: Non-UK engagement
F: Another party operated PAYE on the worker’s payments
If more than one reason applies select the option that comes first on the list. For example, if A and E both apply, select A.

You should also include the:

worker’s unique taxpayer reference - if they are self-employed or a member of a partnership
start date of work with client
end date of work with client - if there is one
The start date is the first date that a worker provides their personal services to a client for which they are paid.

The end date is the last date that a worker provides their services to a client for which they are paid.

Where the worker’s services are provided on different occasions to a single client in a reporting period the payments should be combined into a single figure.

Where the worker’s services are provided on different occasions to more than one client in a reporting period, you can either:

combine the engagements into a single record with a single payment
provide a separate line and payment for each client
If a bureau is used to pay another party on the worker’s behalf the name of the company or partnership should be reported, not the bureau.

If the worker was engaged to do the work and their payments have not been reported to HMRC using RTI, any worker engaged through options A to E, you must also include:

total amount paid for the worker’s services - this is the total payment that you contracted for the worker’s services including any expenses and VAT
currency - this must be given in Great British pounds (GBP) or euros (EUR) and if the worker was paid in another currency it should be converted into Great British pounds or euros using HMRC exchange rates
whether or not VAT has been charged on the payment
the full name or trading name and address of who the intermediary paid for the worker’s services - this may be the worker’s company or partnership
Companies House registration number - only if the worker was engaged to do the work through a limited company (option D)
You may not know how much money the worker actually gets, but you will know how much money you paid to whoever supplied the worker to you. This may be another intermediary, limited company or PSC, or the worker themselves.

For example, you have a contract with a client to supply 10 workers for £1,000. You supply:

5 workers yourself who you pay £100 each - 2 are your own employees you pay using PAYE and you report their payments on your RTI submission
5 workers from another intermediary who you pay £450 (£90 for each worker) and PAYE is operated by someone else
Your report to HMRC will include:

3 workers you supplied who weren’t your employees who were paid £100 each
5 workers from the other intermediary who were paid £90 each

Yes, I agree but the key word is "worker", inter-alia, to be a worker you need to be under the control of an employer. Many contractors are not, they set there own work pattern. I suggest that the rules have been erroneously drafted but it would be a costly exercise to test it as the matter would most likely to be taken as far as the Supreme Court.

UK legislation cannot override the definition of "worker"

[FatLazyContractor]

TL;DR

So yes or no?

Is this how you run your business?

[SantaClaus]

Yes, we should all abandon our Ltds and find scheme providers who can promise us 95%+ retention instead.

I'm glad we have people who have demonstrated such fantastic good judgement in the past to advise us for the future.

Yes, joining a scheme was a mistake in glorious 20/20 hindsight, but HMRC have their sights gunned on everyone now, including Ltd's and brollies.

Still, if you don't believe me, come back in a year and answer the same question.

[Unix]

Is this how you run your business?

Pretty much yes, it's helped me avoid IR35, dodgy offshore schemes etc. Some posters here know more about running a Ltd company (contractor) than anyone else.

[eek]

Looks like the "beginning of the end" of Limited company contracting to me.

No it just means that being a single contractor may be harder in the future with less tax benefits...

Not a problem if you see what is happening know your market and know other contractors good enough to act as consultants rather than simply being bum on seat contractors...

[northernladuk]

Pretty much yes, it's helped me avoid IR35, dodgy offshore schemes etc. Some posters here know more about running a Ltd company (contractor) than anyone else.

You don't 'avoid' IR35.... Jesus...

[Unix]

You don't 'avoid' IR35.... Jesus...

Have you ever had a contract changed to make it more IR35 friendly? Then you avoided IR35. That I have to explain this tulip to to is an embarrassment when you go around claiming to be the oracle of all knowledge on contracting when really you are a twat with a little knowledge who likes to abuse newbies. It's no wonder I receive PMs from people wondering why you are such an cretin.

[Contreras]

IPSE's take

https://www.ipse.co.uk/guides/new-re...ments-agencies

Thanks. Summary of that seems to be "we're not happy, but you probably should go along with it" as well then?

Maybe. Although "watch this space" too:-

IPSE has engaged a solicitor to review the legislation and is consulting with a barrister to gage whether it might be possible to challenge it.

I trust that QDOS's arguments that the legislation will not typically apply to Ltd contractors will be taken on board as well.

[PerfectStorm]

It doesn't apply to contractors but it does apply to your agency who have to get the info off you anyway, so isn't that just semantics?