working for the same company on an employed and self employed basis

Comms69

ryno wrote: »

By no financial gain I meant there wouldn’t be any by being employed and self employed at the same time. I’ve done the figures and I’m definitely better off self employed. It’s just the issue of not being able to sub contract back to my current employer as some aspects of the work they do are regulated by 3rd parties who require the work carried out to be done by an employee and not a sub contractor

You need to be earning approx. 50-65% more for it to be better to be self employed.


I am not seeing that.

Samsung_Note2

unforeseen wrote: »

HMRC would probably consider that the OP is not actually self employed when they are doing work substantially the same as his PAYE work and also it is work that they did as a PAYE employee with the same emoyer prior to this.

Maybe..best the OP phones HMRC and gets them to clarify.

System

If you are doing the job exactly the same self employed as you were as an employee it is highly unlikely you'll be considered self employed by HMRC primarily because someone will be telling you how, when and where to work, you'll effectively have a boss.

phill99

Surely you need only need to be employed for them for 1 hour per week to cover the regs. if you do more work than the 1 hour, then they pay you an employed hourly rate with all the associated holiday entitlement, pension, Employers NI etc. Then the rest of the time which could be anything from 39 hours to zero hours per week, you could be undertaking your self employed work.

ryno

So many varied comments here. I guess my main concern is HMRC s view on it all. I’m also considering to route of a limited company, which logically would male a clearer divide as I would, in theory, not be directly sub contracting back to my employer. Then possibly booking minimum hours a week as an employee of the company to overcome the issue with the “having to be employed” matter with the 3rd party regulator. I think it may be a case of wait and see.

I like to think I might have the upper hand in negotiations with the employer as I feel I am heavily relied on compared to other colleagues. Yet at the same time I am well aware that no one is ever bigger than the company or irreplaceable!!

ryno

ryno wrote: »

My aim is to be sub contracting back to my employer for 3-4 days a week and doing my own work 1-2 days a week for the 1st year.

phill99 wrote: »

Surely you need only need to be employed for them for 1 hour per week to cover the regs. if you do more work than the 1 hour, then they pay you an employed hourly rate with all the associated holiday entitlement, pension, Employers NI etc. Then the rest of the time which could be anything from 39 hours to zero hours per week, you could be undertaking your self employed work.

This is along the lines of what I had I mind and was opened the thread hoping that everyone would be unanimous with an answer like this!! 😂😂😂

Dox

Don't confuse providing your services through your own limited company with providing them on a self-employed basis. The latter would give you a problem with HMRC, the former shouldn't (and shouldn't be caught by IR35 if you take proper advice and set things up correctly).

dlmcr

I think HMRC should be the least of your worries right now... Providing services through a limited company is a different thing to being self employed which again is a different thing to being an employee. You seem to want to best of all worlds whilst not understanding the risks of any of these worlds. In your scenario of being self employed you would need to source your own clients. You can certainly ask the existing clients if you could provide services directly to them but I suspect there are a number of factors which will mean they will not agree to such an arrangement plus you will antagonise your employer. I am struggling to see why your "company" would provide you with "their" clients free of charge, these clients would then pay you directly (at no risk at all to yourself!), and then over time you would take them away from the company to contract with you directly! which seems to be what are proposing.. Unless I am misunderstanding things, why would the company agree to this?

ryno

Definitely wrong end of the stick here. I would carrying out work for my (ex)employer, not directly for their clients. Instead of handing in a timesheet and getting a wage slip etc, I would hand my (ex)employer an invoice for the 3-4 days work I have done for them that week, instead of the 5 days I do as an employee currently. The remaining 1-2 days would be spent doing work for my own clients, with no link to my (ex)employer and they would be invoiced individually.

unforeseen

But that is being totally self employed. You were asking about working PAYE for your current employer, being the obvious assumption for your first post based on the info given, and also working self employed for them doing the same job.

That is the scenario that has been answered.

If you are carrying out work for your (ex) employer as self employed then that won't meet the requirements of the regulatory body.

So, in that situation, the obvious route for the employer is not to employ you at self employed rates but to take on somebody else as PAYE at the cheaper rate. If you are not going to work full time for the company, why should the employer have the hassle of trying to find a second person willing to work part time?