Originally posted by tractor
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Giant want me to personally indemnify them"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostQuite. They have done this for the most obvious reason, to flow the risk downwards past them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View PostAs Giant run an umbrella company and have done for many years I am surprised they would have concerns about unpaid tax and NI and I am pretty sure they have a full understanding of the Onshore Intermediaries legislation
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 20years View PostHi All,
Just thought I'd post a final update to this story.
GP have agreed to drop the requirement for contractors to personally indemnify them. They stated that the reasons for wanting it in the first place were due to the new onshore intermediary legislation, and to protect themselves against unpaid tax/ni claims from HMRC, even though the HMRC guidance states that this doesnt apply where contractors are shareholders of the ltd company and not employed on a self employed basis. The indemnity itself was far more wide ranging than just protection against hmrc claims.
GP have stated that they intend to introduce this indemnity at some point in the future, but at the moment because no other agencies are trying to do it, they are finding that they're getting too much push back, so for now they are not going to use it.
Anyway - thanks for all the help and advise - especially the links to the PCG guidance for agencies around the onshore intermediary legislation.
My take on it is that they hadnt fully understood the onshore intermediary legislation and the scenarios it applies and doesnt apply, and had reacted in a heavy handed way.
Turned out ok in the end - for now.......
BTW - 9 other contractors had already signed it, not sure how many were refusing, I know of only 1 other.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jubber View Posthave one
Right answer in the long run, but if you'd not stood up to them and accepted (I wonder just how many have) then they would have you firmly over a barrel.
I won't be at all surprised to hear others with the same tale you've recounted, as I doubt they've changed their approach.
Leave a comment:
-
Hi All,
Just thought I'd post a final update to this story.
GP have agreed to drop the requirement for contractors to personally indemnify them. They stated that the reasons for wanting it in the first place were due to the new onshore intermediary legislation, and to protect themselves against unpaid tax/ni claims from HMRC, even though the HMRC guidance states that this doesnt apply where contractors are shareholders of the ltd company and not employed on a self employed basis. The indemnity itself was far more wide ranging than just protection against hmrc claims.
GP have stated that they intend to introduce this indemnity at some point in the future, but at the moment because no other agencies are trying to do it, they are finding that they're getting too much push back, so for now they are not going to use it.
Anyway - thanks for all the help and advise - especially the links to the PCG guidance for agencies around the onshore intermediary legislation.
My take on it is that they hadnt fully understood the onshore intermediary legislation and the scenarios it applies and doesnt apply, and had reacted in a heavy handed way.
Turned out ok in the end - for now.......
BTW - 9 other contractors had already signed it, not sure how many were refusing, I know of only 1 other.Last edited by 20years; 12 December 2014, 17:19.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostI was thinking someone from ARC.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 20years View PostSo, GP wont move on this. So I have had to decline the renewal.
Will see if thats the end of it, or whether now because I've declined that sparks some movement.
If its the end of it , I am thoroughly annoyed, and pretty upset at having to turn down 6 months worth of work that I worked hard to obtain without an agencies involvment. It probably also rules out working for this client again until this is sorted out.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View PostI can't help thinking that there may be some who won't be best chuffed about an umbrella company operating as an agency ARC WELCOMES APSCO UNDERTAKING FOR UMBRELLA MEMBERS
Leave a comment:
-
I can't help thinking that there may be some who won't be best chuffed about an umbrella company operating as an agency ARC WELCOMES APSCO UNDERTAKING FOR UMBRELLA MEMBERS
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 20years View PostSo, GP wont move on this. So I have had to decline the renewal.
Will see if thats the end of it, or whether now because I've declined that sparks some movement.
If its the end of it , I am thoroughly annoyed, and pretty upset at having to turn down 6 months worth of work that I worked hard to obtain without an agencies involvment. It probably also rules out working for this client again until this is sorted out.
Anyway, he phoned me up today looking to fill a perm position
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Yesterday 09:20
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Dec 3 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Dec 2 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
Leave a comment: