Reply to: Giant pull their Trailblazer service

[THEPUMA]

That is what we all thought and hoped it would be. But the legislation doesn't say that. As it is currently worded, any PSC with an accountant could be caught.

Which is why Giant have pulled Trailblazer.

[tim123]

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.

I agree.

Except that I think they would then be deducting (and paying) tax due and moving the remains of the money straight into the client's personal account.

Tim

[tim123]

Think about it, tax year ends in 2 days. What the hell do you do at the 11th hour.

You take over the responsibility for the limited company (and the bank account) that Giant have created for you and get another accountancy to do the books in the future.

You don't need to get this done in 2 days, you just need to get it done before you need to invoice for April.

Are Giant offering this option? (No, thought not)

tim

[Bigbird]

Well most accountants AFAIK will still set up your Co for you for a start! So to my mind they are actually providing LESS of a service........... and from what I can see their prices aren't a lot different..........

[malvolio]

All of which rather makes you wonder what they do offer that a properly qualified accountacy firm doesn't?

To be fair they are trying to retain a business that has just been made illegal; I suspect most of us would fight a bit if we were told we could no longer do what we do...

[Bigbird]

Anyone want to take bets on whether or not Brooksons will be throwing the towl in next?

Quite the opposite according to their latest PR puff which arrived on one of my clients' desks yesterday.

However one thing that caught my eye in it was that it very clearly says that all their "clients, or members as we like to call them, will be fully compliant under the new legislation providing the member takes full ownership and is appointed as director before 6th April." Which kinda suggests to me that they will not be taking on any NEW work (or members as they like to call them) once that date has passed? Or at least (read further) not on the same terms as the existing ones.

They are also saying that any member who does not have a bank account for their company by 6th April can have funds paid into the main Brookson account but they will be subject to full employed PAYE and NIC deductions if this happens. Would make more sense to me just to ask their agency to defer payment for a week or so but hey ho.

The "key elements of our services that need to change as a result of the revised legislation" referred to by Brookson are:

-they will not set up Ltd Cos or bank acocunts for propspective members, they will have to do this themselves (although Brookson can refer them to a preferred firm of solicitors and a preferred bank apparently)

-they will not be making any payments of directors fees, expenses, dividends, CT, VAT, Paye or NI on behalf of the member

-they will not provide any insurance services direct to members although again they will recommend a preferred supplier

FYI

[Money Money Money]

Mostly!!


There is a big difference between a firm of accountants (us, Nixon, Darren, high street firms) and payroll processors (Giant, Brooksons et al)

MSC's and composites have tried to simply take their existing structure and get round the new legislation by way of semantics. The individuals who they were acting for would have little if any idea that they were now "running their own company".

The pre budget report said they were clamping down on composites and MSC's, but it wasn't until the Budget itself that the full force of the legislation was known - that was what caught Giant out, and that was why they pulled it at the last minute - not to sucker anyone in as has been suggested.

Anyone want to take bets on whether or not Brooksons will be throwing the towl in next?

[simondolan]

Simon of SJD has already said his bit further up. He may even answer you this time.

FWIW: Simon gets a lot of respect on here. Most who have dealt with him have found him to be honest and (mostly) correct.

Mostly!!


There is a big difference between a firm of accountants (us, Nixon, Darren, high street firms) and payroll processors (Giant, Brooksons et al)

MSC's and composites have tried to simply take their existing structure and get round the new legislation by way of semantics. The individuals who they were acting for would have little if any idea that they were now "running their own company".

The pre budget report said they were clamping down on composites and MSC's, but it wasn't until the Budget itself that the full force of the legislation was known - that was what caught Giant out, and that was why they pulled it at the last minute - not to sucker anyone in as has been suggested.

[THEPUMA]

My new thread regarding the definition of a professional accountant in the context of MSC providers is particularly relevant but I won't repost here.

[The Lone Gunman]

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.

Simon of SJD has already said his bit further up. He may even answer you this time.

FWIW: Simon gets a lot of respect on here. Most who have dealt with him have found him to be honest and (mostly) correct.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.