The old "well every contractor signs it and you're the first one whos ever had an issue" argument.
Same old every time....
- 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 "Working Practices pass, but contract is a fail"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by The Spartan View PostExactly and to be fair I believe he had no idea what he was talking about, either that or he was spinning it like a politician.
As we've all seen agents have no clue, they just have processes to follow and odds are they get reduced commissions if people won't sign the ripoff terms, absurd declarations and comedy contracts.
Not like as a group they're famous for truthfulness.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostHmmm - so you sign that and blow your right of substitution because everyone has to be a director or owns more than 5% of your company.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostAnd (apart from walking away from a contract*), this is your problem how?
(*In the same position I'd do exactly the same as you btw.)
Even the QDOS review flagged the declaration as being absolute junk, but no their employment lawyers know better. Hmmm if it's on the gov.uk site in black and white how is it open to that type of interpretation
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Spartan View PostJust had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:
(*In the same position I'd do exactly the same as you btw.)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Spartan View PostJust had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:
In relation to the agency legislation (Chapter 7, Part 2 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003) (also
known as the Onshore Intermediary legislation), on behalf of <The Company> I declare:
That all individual(s) supplied by <The Company> and <ROA> (known as PSC) is/are
owners/directors and shareholders of the company (such shareholding is more than 5%);
That the PSC will provide such evidence as required by <The Recruitment Company> that any
individuals supplied by the PSC are shareholders or directors;
That, in order to benefit from the transfer of liability provision set out in section 44(4)(b) of the Income
Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, any remuneration payable by the PSC to any individuals supplied
by it is treated by the PSC as employment income;
That, any other payments (which do not amount to remuneration) made by the PSC to any individuals
supplied by it are treated as dividend income as a genuine consequence of that individual's
shareholding in the PSC;
That the PSC is VAT registered;
That if the PSC is VAT registered I will provide a copy of the VAT Registration Certificate;
That the PSC is not an Offshore Company.
Should the PSC fail to meet the above criteria, then the PSC will be unable to provide their service to the <Recruitment company>
Leave a comment:
-
Just had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:
In relation to the agency legislation (Chapter 7, Part 2 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003) (also
known as the Onshore Intermediary legislation), on behalf of <The Company> I declare:
That all individual(s) supplied by <The Company> and <ROA> (known as PSC) is/are
owners/directors and shareholders of the company (such shareholding is more than 5%);
That the PSC will provide such evidence as required by <The Recruitment Company> that any
individuals supplied by the PSC are shareholders or directors;
That, in order to benefit from the transfer of liability provision set out in section 44(4)(b) of the Income
Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, any remuneration payable by the PSC to any individuals supplied
by it is treated by the PSC as employment income;
That, any other payments (which do not amount to remuneration) made by the PSC to any individuals
supplied by it are treated as dividend income as a genuine consequence of that individual's
shareholding in the PSC;
That the PSC is VAT registered;
That if the PSC is VAT registered I will provide a copy of the VAT Registration Certificate;
That the PSC is not an Offshore Company.
Should the PSC fail to meet the above criteria, then the PSC will be unable to provide their service to the <Recruitment company>
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Spartan View Postyou got that right, the thought had definitely crossed my mind. Glad it's resolved now but I'm horrified at how such a small change in legislation has been taken.
Actually saying thay, **** Em, they screwed up and look a bit silly now. No being fair to them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostIt's more likely the threat of the Op and 299 of his mates turning up at the agency dress in capes and a loin cloths carry shields and spears that tipped it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TykeMerc View PostSensible use of the negotiation point there, or more accurately the negotiating baseball bat with nails through it
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Spartan View PostJust got off the phone with the agent all sorted now they're going to make the amendments after I mentioned that I would indeed inform the client that they were jerking me around with the contract.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TykeMerc View PostIf you hit a stone wall with the Agency then a polite word with the client explaining why you're unable to accept the renewal due to the Agency trying to impose conditions may be in order. Nothing to lose at that point really.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Spartan View PostYeah definitely looking that way, the client is going to be very unhappy if I decide to not take it. I have no idea why they find it so difficult to understand.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psychocandy View PostAgency getting wrong end of the stick and sticking crap in their contracts and not giving a monkeys. Sounds familiar :-)
Good luck spartie. Surely you're in the position of power here though? You've been there a while, client wants you to stay, agency trying to change the status quo. Can't imagine client would be overpleased if you said sorry, agency are trying to change things, I'd have been happy to stay otherwise.
Leave a comment:
-
Agency getting wrong end of the stick and sticking crap in their contracts and not giving a monkeys. Sounds familiar :-)
Good luck spartie. Surely you're in the position of power here though? You've been there a while, client wants you to stay, agency trying to change the status quo. Can't imagine client would be overpleased if you said sorry, agency are trying to change things, I'd have been happy to stay otherwise.
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
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: