Originally posted by northernladuk
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!
Reply to: Lower paid contractor discussion
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 "Lower paid contractor discussion"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostEspecially gricer and lpm1 sockies in the professional forums.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostAren't we all?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostAren't we all?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostIt's still a waste of Internet space.
Leave a comment:
-
NLUK poses a good questions as follows:
"If she is outside and manages to argue she's an employee won't she be liable for all the backtax, interest and penalties for the three years. Surely proving she's an employee is possibly the worst move she can make surely?"
This is basically what the next step will depend on - I do wonder that is she wins and is an employee whether HMRC will be notified and recalculate her tax to her disadvantage
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostI get that and that's a fair assumption. Don't understand why that means I can't post on the thread anymore.. Point taken anyway.
Doesn't seem to take a lot to do that nowadays to be fair but I'll bet it will. FTCs do that and they are a common and accepted method of engagement.
I asked you to read and consider that possibility before your next post and modify accordingly.
I had to write a post explaining why you are rude to newbies, that should tell you something.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by fullyautomatix View PostAbsolute nonsense. Getting the lawyers in on the company, who at this point have done everything by the book, have no idea of her pregnancy is going to result in only one thing. If it is a medium sized company, they will have the services of some strong lawyers themselves.
The OP claims she cannot do the job after the baby arrives since this is a role that involves travel, what do you want the lawyers to do, argue that the OP sits in the office with the baby all day and get paid ?
If the contract continues and the OP is happy then of course no lawyers but if they do terminate and boot her out what would it cost the OP ...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NowPermOutsideUK View PostYou should totally see an employment lawyer and ask them for their opinion - Some of the lawyers even work for no win no fee and there are charities that do help with real legal advice
If HMRC can move the goalposts and claim contractors are hidden employees then employees are perfectly entitled to try their luck and see if they were really employees with all the rights attached to it. It will cost the employee nothing if they find a no win no fee and they would lose nothing. The client might well settle to avoid the fight
I have a lot of respect for Eeeks answer which is the same as mine basically
You bolded comments aren't right or at best very grey. 'Trying their luck' to see is a very expensive process which has further reaching fallout than just winning or losing. Look how much it's costing HMRC and how difficult it is. Those costs and complexity will also affect the contractor. It's only been done once or twice so far and it's been expensive so that speaks volumes. I don't think the've been cases against a client either, only vs HMRC.
If she is outside and manages to argue she's an employee won't she be liable for all the backtax, interest and penalties for the three years. Surely proving she's an employee is possibly the worst move she can make surely?
So not the same as Eeks.
Leave a comment:
-
Oh, I think you were posting here with username LondonPM before you got banned, I see that you are back with more nonsense now.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NowPermOutsideUK View PostYou should totally see an employment lawyer and ask them for their opinion - Some of the lawyers even work for no win no fee and there are charities that do help with real legal advice
If HMRC can move the goalposts and claim contractors are hidden employees then employees are perfectly entitled to try their luck and see if they were really employees with all the rights attached to it. It will cost the employee nothing if they find a no win no fee and they would lose nothing. The client might well settle to avoid the fight
I have a lot of respect for Eeeks answer which is the same as mine basically
The OP claims she cannot do the job after the baby arrives since this is a role that involves travel, what do you want the lawyers to do, argue that the OP sits in the office with the baby all day and get paid ?
Leave a comment:
-
You should totally see an employment lawyer and ask them for their opinion - Some of the lawyers even work for no win no fee and there are charities that do help with real legal advice
If HMRC can move the goalposts and claim contractors are hidden employees then employees are perfectly entitled to try their luck and see if they were really employees with all the rights attached to it. It will cost the employee nothing if they find a no win no fee and they would lose nothing. The client might well settle to avoid the fight
I have a lot of respect for Eeeks answer which is the same as mine basically
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: