A suggestion - for free - for critique

[TykeMerc]

What do you think?

So you can advertise that bunch of l**rs some more? Don't be absurd.
Whatever Webberg is, he's a tax professional, not a bunch of clowns with an agenda who want to claim a mandate of 4.5 million with a "membership" of around 20,000 who are largely insurance customers anyway.

[mudskipper]

What do you think?

I don't know - I went over a number of possibilities, and came to no conclusion, hence my question.

[malvolio]

So you can advertise that bunch of l**rs some more? Don't be absurd.
Whatever Webberg is, he's a tax professional, not a bunch of clowns with an agenda who want to claim a mandate of 4.5 million with a "membership" of around 20,000 who are largely insurance customers anyway.

I think you'll find the guy advising IPSE on this whole area is at least as much of a tax professional as Mr Webber, but let's not let reality intrude on your little world.

[mudskipper]

I think you'll find the guy advising IPSE on this whole area is at least as much of a tax professional as Mr Webber, but let's not let reality intrude on your little world.

So, to repeat my question, what do you think could be achieved by Mr Webber, a tax specialist, talking to IPSE?

[DaveB]

You really need to talk to IPSE...

What do you think?

I think you'll find the guy advising IPSE on this whole area is at least as much of a tax professional as Mr Webber, but let's not let reality intrude on your little world.

Mal, please stop with the cryptic bollocks (sorry mods) on the professional forums. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. Otherwise please stop being a distraction to otherwise useful discussions. If you can't even be bothered to give a straight answer to a fellow Council member then don't bother at all.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

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.

Don't you have to make a capital contribution to an LP?? How would that work? Would the earnings generated coming into the partnership qualify?

[malvolio]

Mal, please stop with the cryptic bollocks (sorry mods) on the professional forums. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. Otherwise please stop being a distraction to otherwise useful discussions. If you can't even be bothered to give a straight answer to a fellow Council member then don't bother at all.

He asked me to help out with IPSE some while ago. As far as I know nothing has yet come of it. As for "fellow council members", (a) I'm not aware I was talking to one since I don't bother tracking people across various websites and I'm not on here as an IPSE CC members anyway, and (b) since this is actually CC business I would prefer to deal with it where it belongs and where I can give straight answers.

HTH. BIDI.

[TykeMerc]

So stop trying to advertise that organisation on the thread please. All you achieve is a derail. It doesn't enhance their reputation one bit, quite the opposite.

[TykeMerc]

In response to the original suggestion, the major issues are trust, self interest and independence, none of which sit well in your scenario, but they're of great interest to most contractors.

I suspect you were expecting a strongly negative reaction, it is an interesting concept, what amounts to being a contractors cooperative, but the structure would need a lot more thought before it's appealing to many of us.

[LondonManc]

In response to the original suggestion, the major issues are trust, self interest and independence, none of which sit well in your scenario, but they're of great interest to most contractors.

I suspect you were expecting a strongly negative reaction, it is an interesting concept, what amounts to being a contractors cooperative, but the structure would need a lot more thought before it's appealing to many of us.

The structure of cash flow would be the issue.

How do you divide it up? If Contractor A generates £120k of income, as does Contractor B, whereas Contractor C generates £100k and Contractor D £70k because he's been on the bench for 5 months, what happens?