A suggestion - for free - for critique

[Fred Bloggs]

That's beginning to sound like how Brookson used to operate, we know how that ended.

[DaveB]

Who sets day rates = you.
Individual sets own rate = yes
No collective negotiation. Each partner is an agent for the partnership and negotiates on his/her own behalf and for the partnership.
IR 35 risk = you are a self employed partner responsible for client and to partnership. A partner cannot be a disguised employee unless they are salaried.

From the OP.

"The CBF1 partnership negotiates with a client as a collective. Once the scope of service is agreed, the partnership selects which partner(s) will be allocated to do the work."

So the company will negitiate the scope of work but not the cost? Not many clients will go for that. Theyw ill want to know costs up front.

[LondonManc]

I imagine I'll carry on contracting "as normal" for a couple of years, market allowing, then see what the bottom line looks like compared to the previous couple of comparative years. It may simply be the case that I need to reduce my cost base, just do a four-night stay away or negotiate working practices to reduce travel/accommodation costs.

Absolutely not head in the sand, but don't want to go down a co-operative route like you've suggested. I'd rather get together with contractors that I trust and form a consultancy of our own with a virtual head office, minimal general costs and engage other trusted contractors as associates if business grows.

[cojak]

Never work under a partnership unless you understand EXACTLY how it works (regarding tax and other liabilities ).

There is one poster here who works in an LLP and says that it costs him slightly MORE tax than if he was Ltd.

I would never work in an LLP.

[webberg]

Never work under a partnership unless you understand EXACTLY how it works (regarding tax and other liabilities ).

There is one poster here who works in an LLP and says that it costs him slightly MORE tax than if he was Ltd.

I would never work in an LLP.

An LLP would not work for the above. A member of an LLP is specifically no trading and that would be a problem with no solution. I agree though that an LLP is a busted flush for most tax purposes.

An LP would work. A GP would work but would have issued with joint and several liability.

The core idea here obviously is to work via some form of entity that is not

a. sole trading
b. a company
c. a syndicate

That leaves a limited choice.

There are some NON UK entities that might suit. There certainly used to be something called a European Economic Interest Group (EEIG - commonly referred to as an "earwig") which is a sort of pan european partnership. Having a beast that has its legal feet in another country but trades in the UK opens up all sorts of mischief. I guarantee that these are being looked at this very day.

More interesting is a cell company. You get these in Jersey/Guernsey/BVI etc.

[malvolio]

An LLP would not work for the above. A member of an LLP is specifically no trading and that would be a problem with no solution. I agree though that an LLP is a busted flush for most tax purposes.

An LP would work. A GP would work but would have issued with joint and several liability.

The core idea here obviously is to work via some form of entity that is not

a. sole trading
b. a company
c. a syndicate

That leaves a limited choice.

There are some NON UK entities that might suit. There certainly used to be something called a European Economic Interest Group (EEIG - commonly referred to as an "earwig") which is a sort of pan european partnership. Having a beast that has its legal feet in another country but trades in the UK opens up all sorts of mischief. I guarantee that these are being looked at this very day.

More interesting is a cell company. You get these in Jersey/Guernsey/BVI etc.

You really need to talk to IPSE...

[Zero Liability]

Who sets day rates = you.
Individual sets own rate = yes
No collective negotiation. Each partner is an agent for the partnership and negotiates on his/her own behalf and for the partnership.
IR 35 risk = you are a self employed partner responsible for client and to partnership. A partner cannot be a disguised employee unless they are salaried.

I might be getting things a bit mixed up here, but I thought LLPs had their own equivalent of IR35, brought in last year?

[mudskipper]

You really need to talk to IPSE...

To what effect?

[WordIsBond]

Part of this partnership is a new company (CBF1 Co) which is formed by and owned by the 20 individuals. Their ownership is prorated according to their contribution to the partnership.

You posit ownership moving every year. It would have to, because individuals' contributions would vary. If you have twenty partners, you'll probably lose one or two every year, you'll have someone on the bench part of the year, you'll have someone get a really good contract. Percentages will be changing constantly.

And if the goal is to keep from breaching the 5% ownership threshold, you probably need 40 partners, not 20, for those reasons.

The contractors wouldn't do the setup work, some accountant / brolly / agency of some kind would set it up and recruit the 40 contractors, presumably. And they would all be not only part owners, but also employees, right?

But if they are all employees, then you can run into trouble with changing share ownership, can't you? If an employee is given shares in an existing company, won't there be tax liability for the value of those shares? And they aren't valueless....

I think it would be hard to make this work.

[malvolio]

To what effect?

What do you think?