I've accepted redundancy but my about-to-be-former employer wants me to
work part-time under contract on a self-employed, sole-trader basis (ie
not as a ltd company)

1) They've offered me a rate of about double what my salary was - is
that about right to compensate for no holiday, sick pay, pension, NIC etc?

2) They don't mind if I work one day a week or one week a month. Is one
or the other better for NIC purposes?

Not sure HMRC would let me register as self-employed for one week a
month and deregister for 3 weeks to avoid 3 x Class 2 payments. I
already have enough NIC years for a full pension.
--
Reentrant

"Reentrant" wrote in message
...
I've accepted redundancy but my about-to-be-former employer wants me to
work part-time under contract on a self-employed, sole-trader basis (ie
not as a ltd company)

1) They've offered me a rate of about double what my salary was - is that
about right to compensate for no holiday, sick pay, pension, NIC etc?

2) They don't mind if I work one day a week or one week a month. Is one or
the other better for NIC purposes?

Not sure HMRC would let me register as self-employed for one week a month
and deregister for 3 weeks to avoid 3 x Class 2 payments. I already have
enough NIC years for a full pension.
--
Reentrant

1. 100% uplift in usually more than enough. 50% is about "par".

2. Makes no difference. NIC2 applies anyway (unless you are granted
exception), and NIC4 is based on full tax-year.

Your big problem is whether you would qualify (in HMRC's view) as self
employed - and at first sight I very much doubt it. Sounds much more like a
zero hours contract, and this would not remove the liability from your
employer for holidays, SSP, Class 1 NIC etc.

--
Martin

"Martin" wrote
... Sounds much more like a zero hours contract, and this
would not remove the liability from your employer for holidays, ...

How much holidays is the employer liable for on a "zero hours contract"?

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Martin" wrote
... Sounds much more like a zero hours contract, and this
would not remove the liability from your employer for holidays, ...

How much holidays is the employer liable for on a "zero hours contract"?

based upon the hours actually worked

tim

Reentrant wrote:

I've accepted redundancy but my about-to-be-former employer wants me
to work part-time under contract on a self-employed, sole-trader
basis (ie not as a ltd company)

1) They've offered me a rate of about double what my salary was - is
that about right to compensate for no holiday, sick pay, pension, NIC
etc?
2) They don't mind if I work one day a week or one week a month. Is
one or the other better for NIC purposes?

Not sure HMRC would let me register as self-employed for one week a
month and deregister for 3 weeks to avoid 3 x Class 2 payments. I
already have enough NIC years for a full pension.

If you want to keep it simple, you might be better off just to use an
umbrella company.

For a small commision they will supply a pay-as-you-go tax efficient
accountancy service.

They will invoice your employer for your work done, calculate and process
whichever deductions are due and then pay you the net value of your
earnings.

"Martin" wrote
... Sounds much more like a zero hours contract, and this
would not remove the liability from your employer for holidays, ...

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

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

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

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Martin" wrote
... Sounds much more like a zero hours contract, and this
would not remove the liability from your employer for holidays, ...

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

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

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

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

tim

"Martin" wrote
... Sounds much more like a zero hours contract, and this
would not remove the liability from your employer for holidays, ...

"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?

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Martin" wrote
... Sounds much more like a zero hours contract, and this
would not remove the liability from your employer for holidays, ...

"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)

tim

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?