Our website uses cookies to store information on your computer. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but parts of the site will not work as a result. Find out more about how we use cookies.
(Do not show this message again)
Shout99 - News matters for freelancers Shout99 Freelancers' Shop
Search Shout99 - News matters for freelancers
(Advanced Search)
   Join Shout99  About Shout99   Sitemap   Contact Shout99 27th Nov 2014
Forgot your password?
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
New Users Click Here
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
Front Page
News...
Freelancers' Shop...
Ask an Expert...
Letters
Direct Contracts
Press Links
Question Time
The Clubhouse
Conference Hall...
News from Partners
Accountants

Login
Sitemap

Business Links

Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
  
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660

News for the
Construction Industry

Hardhatter.com - News for small businesses in the construction industry

Powered by
Powered by Novacaster
False Self Employment Legislation
by StuartOliver at 07:55 18/06/14 (Ask-Legal-Accounting)
I started a contract in December 2012 and had my contract reviewed at that time. It was passed and I also have a confirmation of working agreements signed by the end client. I have extended my contract a couple of times and have just been asked again.
I have subsequently received an updated contract from the agency containing two new clauses relating to the false self employment legislation.

The first clause stipulates that the worker must be a director or shareholder of the company. The second requests that any documents relating to the limited company must be provided if requested and that the agency will have the right to access the premises on which the documentation is kept.

I am not happy with either of these clauses as the first appears to me to restrict my right to substitute and the second is asking me to give the agency the right to access my accountant's offices, which I surely cannot do?

I would appreciate any feedback on whether I can accept the first clause without prejudicing my IR35 position and whether I am legally entitled to accept the second.

--
Stuart

View Comments (Flat Mode) Printer Version
Mail this to a friend
False Self Employment Legislat... StuartOliver - 18/06
    Re: False Self Employment Legi... egos - 17/06
    Re: False Self Employment Legi... BarryRoback - 17/06
 
Experts
Steve Greenwell - Qdos Consulting

Steve Greenwell
Qdos Consulting

Barry Roback - Privilege Accounts

Barry Roback
Privilege Accounts

Bob Jones - Internet Taxation

Bob Jones
Internet Taxation

Tony Harris, ContractorFinancials

Tony Harris
ContractorFinancials

Chris Caunce, Caunce O'Hara

Chris Caunce
Caunce O'Hara

Crawford Temple

Crawford Temple

Kate Cottrell - Bauer & Cottrell

Kate Cottrell
Bauer & Cottrell

Andy Vessey - Qdos Consulting

Andy Vessey
Qdos Consulting

Simon Sweetman - Sole Practitioner

Simon Sweetman
Sole practitioner

Rob Crossland - Parasol Group

Rob Crossland
Parasol Group

Also on the panel

Barry Hincks
Qdos Consulting

Roger Sinclair
Egos

Andrew Plaskow
Nyman Linden


Copyright 1999-2012, Shout99.com | All Rights Reserved | Legal Notice