Jump to content

JaffaJeo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. I mean specifically my compliance was about income and expenses for both the company and myself. I just feel a bit weird being asked did you work with x or y person (not for as in a client but just -with) and on what projects - because it doesnt relate to my reported incomes or the period of investigation? It kind of makes me think they've read about said projects online and who I worked with (but perhaps not knowing when they occured) on the suspicion that I might have done extra work (thus earnings) I hadn't declared to them? Though there also eager for me to specify adn breakdown with every individual project was by my company (ie. my company) or as a self employed person. Do you think i should just cooperate with those questions or is it worth asking for clarification on why their asking etc? Bah Gharbm your the dude that knows stuff hehe what do you reckon
  2. Hi there! As you might recall I had posted before, citing that I was registered as a self employed individual while also registered as a director for a company. For the year I recieved a compliance check (for both the limited company and my self assessment) about 80% of my income derived from me invoicing my limited company, and 20% from me invoicing (as an individual) other clients. The commission work I did was artistic short term project orientated. So I had the visit, and they went through my income and expenses, and seemed satisfied that the numbers added up. They had noted though that I had not included my income from invoicing my company (as salary) on my SA and had placed it in my self employed income. They also queried about my projects - considering whether an investigation might be necessary to determine employment status (would that be IR35?) I didn't hear anything for about 3 weeks and recieved an email requesting information on any projects (that were done with this and that individual) - that surprised me? Because while I can disclose that information it has nothing to do with my earnings? They ask to confirm information on said projects with individuals even though they occur outside the period for compliance investigation. So im just wondering - at what point does their requests for information become unreasonable or just well fishing?
  3. (I feel terrible asking these questions - but im just trying to understand - thanks so much for the advice!!!) So a self employed person, (ie a private contracter) whom fulfills the criteria of (outside IR35) when invoicing their own company for a commission they did, (for time and expenses) has those monies determined automatically as 'wages' by hmrc subject to a different tax regimen than normal self employed. That it should have been filled in as 'wages' from the SA... is that because hmrc would decide it wasnt really a self employed commission? As if one is an employee of a company (and can be self employed anyway) i would have thought there was discretion and proof that can be provided, that the work is genuinely self employed (even when invoiced to ones own company.) So I thought when they look at my SA and invoices etc, they would be utilising the determinations for IR35 to see whether the payments were valid as self employed incomes? So is this issue really black and white or is there a ridiculous grey area? (because i cant understand why things like ir35 exist unless its because hmrc use it to determine or re-determine the status of incomes as is the case in my scenario?) Thanks for answering btw, i know ive already asked you a lot of questions and you've kindly taken the time to keep answering. I am reading other information trying to educate myself on this too but appreciate the time your giving me.
  4. I just wanted to add, as it can get confusing as regards to IR35? Because there are self employed private contracters who have limited companies too and are not assessed as if there self employed turnover was just a salary from the limited company? Or would they submit there income from a limited company as wages from their SA but would be taxed differently (if deemed outside IR35) Thanks again - its just a lot to get your head around!
  5. Yep I tried the ESI (though it kinda struggled with my industry 'entertainment'? See to me I am genuinely self employed, I mean i'm actively looking for work and commissions outwith what i did with the company, its just that the nature of my work made clients uncomfortable depositing payment to a personal account. (Basically I would get very few gigs a year but would normally be worth a few k a pop) Where as the few I would do as self employed would be for a few hundred. Its also an industry (arts) that is very hard to get employment from (so self employed im certainly working hard to market myself and trying to get gigs.) Any ideas how they will determine if im genuinely self employed? because i can describe what i do with all the honesty and passion in the world haha but if theres some sucky technicalities i should be aware of - much appreciated!
  6. Well Gbarbm thanks for the fast responses much appreciated. I mean in as much as an error (with reasonable care) I mean according to the questions posed here (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/moneytaxandbenefits/taxes/workingandpayingtax/dg_4015975) I would have been self-employed, though of course being a director automatically makes me liable for tax purposes. My accountants had said my personal income was so low that it would have ended up under my personal allowance. But then how can one even do the work (for jobs beyond the scope of NMW as a new start up company) unless there free to work whatever hours they need to get the job done? Should I have never been a company director (even though some of my clients required a limited company to process cheques or for them to be a suitable supplier?) The mind boggles eh! Can i ask Gharbm, hmrcs reassessment of my income as regards to tax - would that likely affect my past claims for WTC as a self employed person? I guess im just confused whether them deciding im 'employed' negates me being self employed - or if i could be both, but that i should have put incomes from the company as an employed proportion of my income? (Just to add not all my income was invoiced to that company (others were direct to clients, but in that particular year, it was like just 20% of my income that came from elsewhere - ) (So sorry for all the questions!!!)
  7. I would also like to add - that the commissions i did for the amount that i worked for would never have been possible in a million years under NMW? With the time and expenses i incurred as a self employed dude? So im wondering if they might factor that... Im also wondering what consequences it would have for the WTC i recieved during that period if they could arbitrarily decide i have to be reprocessed as a paye employee for that period? Im hoping in my compliance that i can perhaps 'comply' going forward, either by no longer being a director of the company and or going through its books as an employee... (just without such negative consequences?!)
  8. Hi Gbarbm thanks for commenting. Oh so is that automatic then? That because im a director, my registered self employed status is dismissed in this case and that even though i incurred the personal expenses for doing invoiced commission work (often to produce things) that they would just decide those monies were wages? Hmm if so I wonder what the consequences would be for the money I've been paid and the expenses Ive incurred and how debatable or discretionary this is with compliance officers? I've certainly never had the security of employment from that company, hours, or other benefits so is there any discretion with this? So really im just wondering then in case of fines or anything scary what that might mean? Especially as i was still technically paying tax and declaring all the incomes i was making through my personal income tax (i was never paid through any other means by the company bar my self employed invoices.) Appreciate the tips!
  9. Hey guys, I'd appreciate some advice here, basically ive had two compliance inspections, one covering a year of my SA (as a self employed person) and the other a limited company that im a director of (for approximately the same period.) As a self employed person my income was only about 9k (with expenses of about 4k). All my figures in thsi respect are legitimate and if anything are probably understated. Same goes for the company, it made about 22k in a year, and for various commissions i did through the company I invoiced it (for approximately 8k.) Other monies that were paid in went out in expenses for things like events budgets that i managed. Ive been told that its possible that the x2 amount spent in the company (with my SA wage saying staying the same in that year) may be what attracted HMRCs attention. I was looking at some articles about self employed or employee, as that particular year saw most of my income come from invoices to that company - though (agreements for half that income in work i did were with me and not the company - though it was channelled through the account for practical reasons.) Other monies I have made (and more so since the year of inspection) have been from a more diverse set of clients. I work an enormous amount of hours (60+ a week) its in the (er not too profitable artistic industries). I decide myself when i work (not the company) I can also decide to hire other people, and have sometimes paid them and their expenses (and always pay my own expenses from my own commission work) from my personal account. I also work with my own equipment (personally owned) and not just company property etc. There are other directors of the company though they dont draw any money from it. I reckon during the inspection there might be some argument about whether I should be employed, but if i was i couldnt work the hours necessary to do survive? (as I'd have to be paid NMW right as a PAYE working director?) I also would presumably have lost WTC and other benefits. So any advice on these matters regarding possible issues would be appreciated. In the compliance they've asked straight off the bat to look into company and personal bank accounts, receipts, invoices, computer records and to inspect the premises.
  10. Okay guys, let me tell you the story again and whats now happened since - cos i really need some advice! So I bought a monitor from the retailer Vadim Computers, it was delivered and I had it for a couple of days before noticing it was a little cracked and damaged on the screen. They told me to sent it straight to their suppliers Computer2000 who would send the damaged one back to the manufacturer and order a replacement. So I send my monitor to Computer2000... they send it to Samsung, put in an order for its replacement. A few weeks pass and what should happen but Vadim Computers goes into volantary liquidation. But of course, ive bought my monitor, had it delivered, owned it! I sent it to Computer 2000... so damaged though it is, i should have my damaged property sent back? I contact Computer 2000 and they are insistent that it is a Vadim Asset, (which they are claiming) and they hace cancelled the order for the replacement!! Despite it being bought and owned now by me. The moment Vadim went inot liquidation they cancelled the order for the replacement, and sat on a credit note Samsung sent them (instead of my replacement monitor.) I contact the liquidator and tell them my situation, that it was a good I bought, and recieved, and sent off to another company - they tell me this. "I would confirm that given you have made full payment for your monitor, it is not considered an asset in the Liquidation of (Vadim) V-Solutions Limited. In order for you to rectify the situation, it is suggested that you contact Samsung directly for a replacement model." So, finally, confirmation from the liquidators themselves that it is not a Vadim Asset... So I contact Computer2000 asking for the return of my damaged monitor. Of course they can't as they have already sent it back to Samsung for the money. So I ask Computer2000 for a replacement. I email, and get no response for a week, and am constantly ignored on calls, until finally I get this response (despite me telling this person the story plus the status affirmed to the monitor by the liquidators...) "We would advise xxxxx to take up the issue directly with the company that he has a contractual relationship with which appears to be a retailer. As Computer 2000 is not a contracting party in that agreement we are unable to assist further." Yeah Right... so there telling me to go to the liquadators as a Vadim Creditor basically... even though the liquidators have confirmed I am not. So, what do you think guys? I mean what about that advice to contact Samsung, surely they would be dismissive to this random guy saying oh I am er owed a monitor from you! er *whisper* cos computer2000 has um 'borrowed' the money for it! Surely (j/k aside) that wouldnt work? So I guess the last alternative now is to follow it up with Small Claims - of course im from Scotland (the Sheriff courts we use for this) so does that have power to reign in a company based in England? What do you reckon guys?
  11. Thanks BankFodder - yep I'll proceed as you've advised! Now to show my stupidity but the CPUT 2008 regs what does that stand for? Also (and i promise ill stop pestering you!) Is it worth attempting to pursue a visa debit chargeback - would that be illegal to do if i initiate this process - as my time to attempt that would run out by mid August, (if Visa's terms and conditions cover from 120 days of purchase.) I do know that there are zero guarantees with visa debit, but can i pursue this simultanously and then drop it (or the monitor) if one or the other schemes for justice failed
  12. 'as described and free from minor defects, and fit for purpose' I don't know though would that hold any weight? It was almost like they were suggesting that Samsung would then chase up the middleman - but would that result in likely success? Does it really apply to my situation even - I did describe what happened, but it is a complex story - trader - supplier - manufacture?! I don't know, do you think Samsung would just look at my letter and go - what the hell - and bin it or?
  13. Hi there - just an update. After speaking to Consumer Direct they suggested, That I should send letters to the Administrators for Vadim, and Samsung referring to the Sales of Good Act 1979/ammended 2002. Contrary to contacting the middleman in this case, they said that Samsung would follow it up with the supplier Computer2000... for a replacement monitor. Hmm? Can I ask - what are your thoughts on that Bankfodder - it sounds a bit more generic than your suggestion?!
  14. Hi thanks for the fast response BankFodder, what do you think about seeking a debit visa chargeback for this matter? Think its worth a shot? I was speaking to someone from the Bank of Scotland (my bank) and they said they do process and review their Visa Card Debit chargebacks though branch staff and many call center staff aren't aware it is possible.
  15. The Tale of Woe - I purchased a £900 monitor from Vadim Computers (V-Solutions). Now Vadim experienced delays getting the monitor from their supplier Computer2000, who themselves were ordering it direct from the manufacturer Samsung. Delayed, I finally recieved the monitor just under a month ago. It was found to be damaged, and so I contacted Vadim, asking for it to be collected and replaced. It was collected by Vadim (23rd June) who then sent it on to their supplier Computer2000. This is where it gets interesting! Vadim goes bankrupt! I contact Vadim for any news about my returned monitor and I get this reponse. "Please phone Computer2000 on 0870 0603344 and ask if they could ship it back to you. On Monday when we ceased trading i noticed a credit note from them, however we have requested a replacement - i suppose they did not have stock." So I call Computer2000 and they are holding that credit note to offset losses from their Vadim account. Okay not much I can do about that but what about my damaged monitor? It was sent back to Samsung! Which of course, they do BEFORE cancelling a replacement order... Now my contract was with Vadim, I bought it from them, but private contractual law made that damaged monitor my property? Certainly it didnt grant authority for it to be sent back to Samsung (for disposal) without a replacement order! So now I'm not sure how to proceed My private property has (99% sure but i will have to check) been destroyed after return. So is Computer2000 liable or do I chase up Samsung? In the advent of that Consumer Direct told me (ok im being optimistic perhaps) that if destroyed a replacement would have to be issued not withstanding that it was purchased from Vadim, as neither had authority to disposs of it. On another issue, this item was stupidly bought on Visa Debit Bank of Scotland, I understand there are some protections but somewhat discretionary. Is it possible to attempt a charge back - and with visa debit (wobbly though it is - does that fall within the 120 days period) would you advise it? Cheers guys - sorry for the long post Much appreciated
×
×
  • Create New...