• 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!

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.

Previously on "Payment frequency- Inside & Outside IR35"

Collapse

  • ensignia
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • PerfectStorm
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by PerfectStorm View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • PerfectStorm
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by ensignia View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • ensignia
    replied
    Originally posted by PerfectStorm View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by PerfectStorm View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by gables View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gables
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    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 :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • PerfectStorm
    replied
    Originally posted by ensignia View Post

    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.

    Originally posted by ensignia View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • ensignia
    replied
    Originally posted by PerfectStorm View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • PerfectStorm
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pickod
    replied
    In short

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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • hobnob
    replied
    Originally posted by JackD View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X