On 12/01/2010 14:58, Ronald Raygun wrote:


Isn't this whole sub-dicussion a red herring? Surely there is no
holiday entitlement at all. The bottom line is that the ex-employer
wishes to re-engage the ex-employee on a new basis, namely that of a
contract for services as opposed to a contract of employment, in other
words the ex-employee will become self-employed. We may assume for the
purpose of this discussion that the ex-employee is willing to enter into
such an arrangement.
OP here. Yes that's right. Basically there are some things that need
doing and it would be up to me when I do them. The contract would be for
a fixed term.

I thought NIC was weekly based so I'll try calculate whether it does in
fact make any difference how I pace the work - all in one go or spread
over several months.
--
Reentrant

"Reentrant" wrote in message
...
On 12/01/2010 14:58, Ronald Raygun wrote:


Isn't this whole sub-dicussion a red herring? Surely there is no
holiday entitlement at all. The bottom line is that the ex-employer
wishes to re-engage the ex-employee on a new basis, namely that of a
contract for services as opposed to a contract of employment, in other
words the ex-employee will become self-employed. We may assume for the
purpose of this discussion that the ex-employee is willing to enter into
such an arrangement.
OP here. Yes that's right. Basically there are some things that need doing
and it would be up to me when I do them. The contract would be for a fixed
term.

I thought NIC was weekly based so I'll try calculate whether it does in
fact make any difference how I pace the work - all in one go or spread
over several months.

NIC is paid at a weekly rate but it needs to be paid whether you are
physically working or not as long as you are registered self-employed. Just
because you do not work a given day, week or month, that does not mean you
cease to be self-employed - in fact that is the usual pattern of
self-employment for many.

So, you don't ring up the tax man and say "I am not working Tuesday or at
all the following week so I will not be self-employed those days, so I will
therefore not be paying NIC for those days.", although it might be fun to
try it, just to hear their response. Let us know how you get on if you do!
:-)

On 12/01/2010 16:00, Yellow wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/01/2010 14:58, Ronald Raygun wrote:


Isn't this whole sub-dicussion a red herring? Surely there is no
holiday entitlement at all. The bottom line is that the ex-employer
wishes to re-engage the ex-employee on a new basis, namely that of a
contract for services as opposed to a contract of employment, in other
words the ex-employee will become self-employed. We may assume for the
purpose of this discussion that the ex-employee is willing to enter into
such an arrangement.
OP here. Yes that's right. Basically there are some things that need doing
and it would be up to me when I do them. The contract would be for a fixed
term.

I thought NIC was weekly based so I'll try calculate whether it does in
fact make any difference how I pace the work - all in one go or spread
over several months.

NIC is paid at a weekly rate but it needs to be paid whether you are
physically working or not as long as you are registered self-employed. Just
because you do not work a given day, week or month, that does not mean you
cease to be self-employed - in fact that is the usual pattern of
self-employment for many.

So, you don't ring up the tax man and say "I am not working Tuesday or at
all the following week so I will not be self-employed those days, so I will
therefore not be paying NIC for those days.", although it might be fun to
try it, just to hear their response. Let us know how you get on if you do!
:-)


I thought Class 2 is payable all the time you're classed self employed
but Class 4 depend on actual weekly earnings.


--
Reentrant

On 12/01/2010 16:30, Reentrant wrote:
On 12/01/2010 16:00, Yellow wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/01/2010 14:58, Ronald Raygun wrote:


Isn't this whole sub-dicussion a red herring? Surely there is no
holiday entitlement at all. The bottom line is that the ex-employer
wishes to re-engage the ex-employee on a new basis, namely that of a
contract for services as opposed to a contract of employment, in other
words the ex-employee will become self-employed. We may assume for the
purpose of this discussion that the ex-employee is willing to enter
into
such an arrangement.
OP here. Yes that's right. Basically there are some things that need
doing
and it would be up to me when I do them. The contract would be for a
fixed
term.

I thought NIC was weekly based so I'll try calculate whether it does in
fact make any difference how I pace the work - all in one go or spread
over several months.

NIC is paid at a weekly rate but it needs to be paid whether you are
physically working or not as long as you are registered self-employed.
Just
because you do not work a given day, week or month, that does not mean
you
cease to be self-employed - in fact that is the usual pattern of
self-employment for many.

So, you don't ring up the tax man and say "I am not working Tuesday or at
all the following week so I will not be self-employed those days, so I
will
therefore not be paying NIC for those days.", although it might be fun to
try it, just to hear their response. Let us know how you get on if you
do!
:-)


I thought Class 2 is payable all the time you're classed self employed
but Class 4 depend on actual weekly earnings.


Ignore that! Think I understand now....

--
Reentrant

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
m...
tim.... wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
How much holidays is the employer
liable for on a "zero hours contract"?

"tim...." wrote
based upon the hours actually worked

"Tim" wrote
What if the contract specifies payment "per job task"
rather than "per hour" - and hours aren't recorded ?

"tim...." wrote
then (assuming the employee were mined to complain) such a blatant
attempt to deny the employee his rightful holiday would be squashed by
the courts

I'm not suggesting that the employer is attempting to deny the employee
their holiday entitlement. I just wondered how that entitlement
would be determined, without a set hourly rate and hours worked...
Do you know how the courts would determine the entitlement?

I told you, on the basis of the actual hours worked.

Not recording this information doesn't mean that it isn't know (by
somebody)

Isn't this whole sub-dicussion a red herring? Surely there is no
holiday entitlement at all. The bottom line is that the ex-employer
wishes to re-engage the ex-employee on a new basis, namely that of a
contract for services as opposed to a contract of employment, in other
words the ex-employee will become self-employed.

One of the other poster thought that the nature of the work would forbid
that and we moved on to "employment" rules.

tim

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
m...
tim.... wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
How much holidays is the employer
liable for on a "zero hours contract"?

"tim...." wrote
based upon the hours actually worked

"Tim" wrote
What if the contract specifies payment "per job task"
rather than "per hour" - and hours aren't recorded ?

"tim...." wrote
then (assuming the employee were mined to complain) such a blatant
attempt to deny the employee his rightful holiday would be squashed by
the courts

I'm not suggesting that the employer is attempting to deny the employee
their holiday entitlement. I just wondered how that entitlement
would be determined, without a set hourly rate and hours worked...
Do you know how the courts would determine the entitlement?

I told you, on the basis of the actual hours worked.

Not recording this information doesn't mean that it isn't know (by
somebody)

Isn't this whole sub-dicussion a red herring? Surely there is no
holiday entitlement at all. The bottom line is that the ex-employer
wishes to re-engage the ex-employee on a new basis, namely that of a
contract for services as opposed to a contract of employment, in other
words the ex-employee will become self-employed. We may assume for the
purpose of this discussion that the ex-employee is willing to enter into
such an arrangement.

Only an employment contract would carry entitlement for holidays, sick
pay,
maternity leave, etc, but in the case of self-employment all these things
are irrelevant.

Now enter the tax man. Rules for taxation of self-employment differ from
those of employment. Usually a self-employed person will pay less tax
(sum of income tax and NI) than an employed person per tax free pound in
his pocket, and for this reason the tax man is keen to spot sham
arrangements where on paper there is a service contract but in practice
the
arrangement is indistinguishable from an employment. For example the
"contractor" may do all his work on "client" premises at times determined
by the client, and indeed he may only have the one client. In such cases
the tax man will "deem" there to be a contract of employment and will tax
the two parties as if there were.

But this does not change the *real* contract from service to employment,
the deeming is for tax purposes only. Is that not so?

Um, no. It will be effective for all employment law

tim

Reentrant wrote:

I thought Class 2 is payable all the time you're classed self employed
but Class 4 depend on actual weekly earnings.

It depends on annual earnings.

Ronald Raygun wrote:


But this does not change the *real* contract from service to employment,
the deeming is for tax purposes only. Is that not so?


HMRC's position is that the nature of the contract is a matter of fact,
not their discretion. Also, if employers could arbitrarily declare
someone to be on a contract for services, they could get round the law
that caught out Baroness Scotland by declaring everyone who couldn't
prove their right to work in the UK to be self employed.

David Woolley wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:

But this does not change the *real* contract from service to employment,
the deeming is for tax purposes only. Is that not so?

HMRC's position is that the nature of the contract is a matter of fact,
not their discretion.

But therein lies a contradiction. What you have said sounds as though
it intends to imply that the proposition that the nature of the contract
is a matter of fact is logically incompatible with any discretion being
involved. But that is not the case.

The contract (taking what is explicitly written down together with
everything implicit in the way it is operated) is characterised by a
number of features. HMRC will look at a selection of these features
and use them as evidence to help them "discover" the fact of whether
the nature of the contract is more likely to fit the model of an
employer/employee, client/provider, or customer/trader relationship.

There is much scope for discretion in how they select the features
and how they draw their conclusions.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
David Woolley wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:

But this does not change the *real* contract from service to employment,
the deeming is for tax purposes only. Is that not so?

HMRC's position is that the nature of the contract is a matter of fact,
not their discretion.

But therein lies a contradiction. What you have said sounds as though
it intends to imply that the proposition that the nature of the contract
is a matter of fact is logically incompatible with any discretion being
involved. But that is not the case.

The contract (taking what is explicitly written down together with
everything implicit in the way it is operated) is characterised by a
number of features. HMRC will look at a selection of these features
and use them as evidence to help them "discover" the fact of whether
the nature of the contract is more likely to fit the model of an
employer/employee, client/provider, or customer/trader relationship.

There is much scope for discretion in how they select the features
and how they draw their conclusions.

HMRC's conclusions are no more binding on the other party that yours are.

If the individual doesn't accept HMRC's interpretation then HMRC have to go
to court to get a judge to decide.

They don't actually have a very good record on this.

tim