• 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.

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 "Using a Limited Company for contracting"

Collapse

  • quackhandle
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    But it's a Friday so I'll wander next door and see is Rishi wants a quick coffee and a chat. You may think I'm joking but the new Treasury office is next door to my new office.
    Ooh, that would be far too tempting for me, I'd be trying to "have a word" with Rishi.

    qh

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    The point I was addressing with the OP was not who was liable at the end, but simply that the law has changed so that the end contractor is no longer liable. And that has been known for a few years, so NLUK's comment was not offensive. OP should have known far longer than a few weeks ago.


    Your comments were irrelevant to that, although the consequences of the outcome are fascinating and of concern to anyone who thinks they're outside.

    I think you've been hanging around lawyers for too long.
    I avoid lawyers like the plague - my issue here is that I really do need to know exactly what HMRC want the law to be as the first argument against my plan for world domination is that isn't what the law says (it is) followed by it will never work ( to which the response is HMRC doesn't care).

    But it's a Friday so I'll wander next door and see is Rishi wants a quick coffee and a chat. You may think I'm joking but the new Treasury office is next door to my new office.
    Last edited by eek; 5 March 2021, 22:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    The point I was addressing with the OP was not who was liable at the end, but simply that the law has changed so that the end contractor is no longer liable. And that has been known for a few years, so NLUK's comment was not offensive. OP should have known far longer than a few weeks ago.


    Your comments were irrelevant to that, although the consequences of the outcome are fascinating and of concern to anyone who thinks they're outside.

    I think you've been hanging around lawyers for too long.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    The point I was making is that the resposibility and liability for the decision moved away from contractors, and also pointing out to the OP that it's been in the works and known about for a few year.

    In terms of the interest of people on this forum and in terms of the OP's interests, liability further up the chain is largely irrelevant. Except possibly the end client might not insist. It really makes no difference - someone upstream mayt take the risk - it really doesn't matter to who which that is.
    Oh it does because as both me and James discovered today - this is a perfectly valid SDS delivery model

    6th April - start work - yep we think you are outside
    May payment from agency (factored invoice April's work)
    June payment from agency (factored invoice May's work)
    July SDS issued (determining that the contract is inside IR35) just prior to first payment by end client

    And the sad bit is that I'm not making this up - while an SDS does need to be provided the deadline for it being provided is no longer the start of the project as it was from 2017 but prior to payment of the first invoice by the end client.
    Last edited by eek; 5 March 2021, 18:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    Again wrong - it depends where the screw up occurs.

    So no decision or no reasonable care from the end client and its the end client

    if the end client generates an SDS and an agency doesn't work with it then it's the agency's responsibility.
    The point I was making is that the resposibility and liability for the decision moved away from contractors, and also pointing out to the OP that it's been in the works and known about for a few year.

    In terms of the interest of people on this forum and in terms of the OP's interests, liability further up the chain is largely irrelevant. Except possibly the end client might not insist. It really makes no difference - someone upstream mayt take the risk - it really doesn't matter to who which that is.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    Again wrong - it depends where the screw up occurs.
    The key point is that it doesn't automatically fall on the client. That de-risks a lot of the "let's ban PSC" brigade and hampers a lot of scheme providers more than they realise.

    It is a technical change, agreed, but an important one.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post

    Technically I guess, both responsibility and liability shift - but only because the liability does. If the determination is wrong, previously the contractor paid. Now the client pays.
    Again wrong - it depends where the screw up occurs.

    So no decision or no reasonable care from the end client and its the end client

    if the end client generates an SDS and an agency doesn't work with it then it's the agency's responsibility.
    Last edited by eek; 5 March 2021, 13:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    Technically, responsibility for the final decision is what is shifting

    Liability is way more complex to explain.
    Technically I guess, both responsibility and liability shift - but only because the liability does. If the determination is wrong, previously the contractor paid. Now the client pays.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    But the liability for IR35 shifting to the client has been publicised for the last few years. IR35 itself is of course over 20 years old.
    Technically, responsibility for the final decision is what is shifting

    Liability is way more complex to explain.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    But the liability for IR35 shifting to the client has been publicised for the last few years. IR35 itself is of course over 20 years old.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by JurassicJallopy View Post
    The client has provided a SDS, stating that we are off payroll. I have also run the details of the contract through CEST and also had the contract looked at by our accountant. The assumption that I am only just getting to this when it hits in 4 weeks is not correct and a tad insulting...

    The Government document that was mentioned to me was quite quietly published on Wednesday. I have now clarified what we will be doing, with my accountant, and am comfortable that we are ok but here is the link just in case it does help anyone else.

    Technical changes to make sure off-payroll working legislation operates as intended - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
    That link covers the changes that the Government have had to be made because the original April 2020 rules made it impossible for an Agency to offload employment to an umbrella company. It really is just a technical change that doesn't impact the IR35 rules - just makes then usable without screwing more people up.

    Leave a comment:


  • JurassicJallopy
    replied
    The client has provided a SDS, stating that we are off payroll. I have also run the details of the contract through CEST and also had the contract looked at by our accountant. The assumption that I am only just getting to this when it hits in 4 weeks is not correct and a tad insulting...

    The Government document that was mentioned to me was quite quietly published on Wednesday. I have now clarified what we will be doing, with my accountant, and am comfortable that we are ok but here is the link just in case it does help anyone else.

    Technical changes to make sure off-payroll working legislation operates as intended - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by JurassicJallopy View Post
    The client is fine with it. My question was if there was an HMRC rule that because we own the limited company we could not bill the contracting through it? I have just been told this by another contractor, but I can't understand why or find anything in HMRC that confirms?
    Doesn't matter what the client is fine with. The fee pay must carry out an assessment on the role. If it's outside then you can carry on. If the role is deemed inside you go brolly. Simple as that.

    You really should know this. It lands in four weeks, it just missed last year and it hit the PS 3 years ago. I can't see how it's possible to not know this is happening even if you don't know the details.

    Have you had your contracts reviewed for IR35 or know enough to gauge yourself? Are you on a SoW deliverables based contractor or a bum on seat?
    Last edited by northernladuk; 4 March 2021, 15:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • JurassicJallopy
    replied
    I'll find out more later when I can get the exact wording of what was said. We invoice our hours to a contracting consultancy via our ltd company, they then get paid by the client and pay us. I pay VAT and then PAYE etc on what we pay ourselves. This model works nicely for us because we can both be paid and take advantage of the tax thresholds. No way do I want to have to start using an umbrella company if I don't have to...

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Yesterday's budget has nothing to do with whether a company wants to work with a PSC or not.

    Who said exactly what to you? It's important to have the exact wording rather than an interpretation of it.

    A client can decide they don't want to directly engage a PSC - that's always been in their gift, it's just that it's now becoming more common. That means they don't have to worry about making status determinations for off-payroll workers from the next financial year. It may be that your only option to continue working with that client is to use an umbrella company.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X