Reply to: Payment frequency- Inside & Outside IR35

[ensignia]

Um, no that would be most clutching of clutching of straws

That's why I said might. Even so, the chances of being investigated are slim to none.

[eek]

Why financially irresponsible? Many companies have irregular income. There are also plenty of good companies with regular income as well so not much of a test. And indications of running a company don't mean anything IR35 wise really. It did when the old Business Entity Tests were about but not really since.

Not even then because a IR35 tribunal would look at the contract and see how contrived it was when the contract says payment on Friday for a timesheet sent on Tuesday

[PerfectStorm]

Why financially irresponsible? Many companies have irregular income. There are also plenty of good companies with regular income as well so not much of a test. And indications of running a company don't mean anything IR35 wise really. It did when the old Business Entity Tests were about but not really since.

read further back - I was referring to deliberately holding back submitting invoices to get a fun ‘payday’ by submitting months worth at once. That’s invoking at least some risk

[northernladuk]

I suppose it may be a good indication of running a company, just one that's financially irresponsible

Why financially irresponsible? Many companies have irregular income. There are also plenty of good companies with regular income as well so not much of a test. And indications of running a company don't mean anything IR35 wise really. It did when the old Business Entity Tests were about but not really since.

[PerfectStorm]

Um, no that would be most clutching of clutching of straws

I suppose it may be a good indication of running a company, just one that's financially irresponsible

[eek]

Irregular payments might point to more of a b2b relationship as well re IR35.

Um, no that would be most clutching of clutching of straws

[ensignia]

Well, I can remember being very interested in it at the start, coming from, as I was, a situation where I was living very much month to month, and where not getting paid on time at the end of the month meant ruin within a week... I also pulled out max dividends per month, at least up until the higher rate.

It's usually the older career contractors who are most uppity about getting their hands on their money asap. Could understand why someone just starting out might be different though. Last few contracts I've had have paid within 7 days of first invoice being approved so not long to wait at all.

You certainly can do that, but you'd be kicking yourself if the agency ever goes out of business. Your inheritors (if you have any) may not thank you either

JPM > Resource Solutions > My Ltd = slim to nil chance of not getting paid. They were excellent payers - invoice by Tuesday morning and in your account for the Friday, but I did enjoy dragging it out for as long as possible. Largest invoice I got paid was 42k, felt like a footballer! Irregular payments might point to more of a b2b relationship as well re IR35.

[eek]

Is that strictly true ;-) or did you mean most didn't declare it? Unless you mean the good old days before April 2000 :-)

There were no inside IR35 in the sense of the new Chapter 10 rules where someone other than the contractor makes the final decision.

[gables]

I think nearly all of us can say that. There weren't any inside gigs in the old days.

Is that strictly true ;-) or did you mean most didn't declare it? Unless you mean the good old days before April 2000 :-)

[PerfectStorm]

I've never really seen the issue with payment terms or the preciousness of some contractors in wanting their pay almost immediately.

Well, I can remember being very interested in it at the start, coming from, as I was, a situation where I was living very much month to month, and where not getting paid on time at the end of the month meant ruin within a week... I also pulled out max dividends per month, at least up until the higher rate.

I remember when I was at JPM in the days when PSCs were allowed, and I'd often not submit timesheets for weeks on end so when I did get paid it would be random and large amounts. Felt like a millionaire then

You certainly can do that, but you'd be kicking yourself if the agency ever goes out of business. Your inheritors (if you have any) may not thank you either

[ensignia]

I'd take the outside role.

Once you're a couple of months in you'll stop caring about payment terms - the notion of 'payday' rather dissapears as it'll be coming in faster than you can spend it.

I've never really seen the issue with payment terms or the preciousness of some contractors in wanting their pay almost immediately.

I remember when I was at JPM in the days when PSCs were allowed, and I'd often not submit timesheets for weeks on end so when I did get paid it would be random and large amounts. Felt like a millionaire then

[PerfectStorm]

I'd take the outside role.

Once you're a couple of months in you'll stop caring about payment terms - the notion of 'payday' rather dissapears as it'll be coming in faster than you can spend it.

[pickod]

In short

I have an outside contract , direct with the client , rate / hours etc negotiated with client.
Invoice frequency Weekly
Payment within 30 Days

[eek]

What Hobnob says but equally frank group is large enough to be a large firm

[hobnob]

The end client is a large company with a UK base, but it sounds like the liability would sit with the agency here, so I’d need to check if Jefferson Frank meet any of those requirements £xM amount or >50 employees, if not the liability sits with me?

No, you've misunderstood. There are 2 scenarios here:

1. End client is large, therefore they're responsible for the SDS. If HMRC challenge it later, the fee payer (recruitment agency) is responsible for repaying tax, and they'll probably try to pass that on to you via a clawback clause in the contract.

2. End client is small, therefore you're responsible for the SDS. If HMRC challenge it later, you are responsible for repaying tax.

Either way, the size of the agency (Jefferson Frank in your case) is irrelevant. It's only the size of the end client that matters.