Starting up as a sole trader in partners name

noitsnotme

Jillanddy said:

ECSD said:

Jillanddy said:

If there is no financial benefit, even if it can be done, should it be done? It seems like an odd arrangement. You are suggesting putting assets in one name and the business in another? That just screams the question "what are you trying to hide / avoid?". To say nothing of potential risks to one or the other if you split up. I've only ever heard of such arrangements being done in relation to limited companies. And usually exactly because they are definitely hiding something. 

I understand it does sound an odd thing to do, which is why we aren't sure if it even can be done. It's more to protect the house and family car if things were to go seriously wrong within the business. 
Is this a done thing when becoming a sole trader? We would both be putting work in the business venture but only one of us would be classed as self employed as we would both be staying in our current jobs until we could/if we could afford to do this as our main income.

Understandable. And equally so why you want to protect your home.  

Do you get why your clients might want to protect theirs?  Do you not care about them? 

Because, you know,  I'm disabled and I'm lucky - I have an income and money behind me.  Many don't.  So what are you protecting yourselves against? You are trying,  whether successfully or not,  to hide your assets to protect yourselves, at the expense of disabled people.  

Why is my home less important than yours? 

Set up a limited company and get insurance that protects both of us. I'm smart and savvy enough to check that.  Many disabled people may not be. 

I’m confused?  What has them wanting to protect their personal assets got anything to do with disabled people?  Have I missed something as I can’t see any previous mention of people with disabilities?

Jillanddy

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

ECSD said:

Jillanddy said:

If there is no financial benefit, even if it can be done, should it be done? It seems like an odd arrangement. You are suggesting putting assets in one name and the business in another? That just screams the question "what are you trying to hide / avoid?". To say nothing of potential risks to one or the other if you split up. I've only ever heard of such arrangements being done in relation to limited companies. And usually exactly because they are definitely hiding something. 

I understand it does sound an odd thing to do, which is why we aren't sure if it even can be done. It's more to protect the house and family car if things were to go seriously wrong within the business. 
Is this a done thing when becoming a sole trader? We would both be putting work in the business venture but only one of us would be classed as self employed as we would both be staying in our current jobs until we could/if we could afford to do this as our main income.

Understandable. And equally so why you want to protect your home.  

Do you get why your clients might want to protect theirs?  Do you not care about them? 

Because, you know,  I'm disabled and I'm lucky - I have an income and money behind me.  Many don't.  So what are you protecting yourselves against? You are trying,  whether successfully or not,  to hide your assets to protect yourselves, at the expense of disabled people.  

Why is my home less important than yours? 

Set up a limited company and get insurance that protects both of us. I'm smart and savvy enough to check that.  Many disabled people may not be. 

I’m confused?  What has them wanting to protect their personal assets got anything to do with disabled people?  Have I missed something as I can’t see any previous mention of people with disabilities?

Sorry I may have confused some posts as my eyes are bad at the moment. But the point still stands.  Why are the clients assets less important than the OPs? I do understand their point. I don't have to agree with it. 

noitsnotme

Jillanddy said:

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

ECSD said:

Jillanddy said:

If there is no financial benefit, even if it can be done, should it be done? It seems like an odd arrangement. You are suggesting putting assets in one name and the business in another? That just screams the question "what are you trying to hide / avoid?". To say nothing of potential risks to one or the other if you split up. I've only ever heard of such arrangements being done in relation to limited companies. And usually exactly because they are definitely hiding something. 

I understand it does sound an odd thing to do, which is why we aren't sure if it even can be done. It's more to protect the house and family car if things were to go seriously wrong within the business. 
Is this a done thing when becoming a sole trader? We would both be putting work in the business venture but only one of us would be classed as self employed as we would both be staying in our current jobs until we could/if we could afford to do this as our main income.

Understandable. And equally so why you want to protect your home.  

Do you get why your clients might want to protect theirs?  Do you not care about them? 

Because, you know,  I'm disabled and I'm lucky - I have an income and money behind me.  Many don't.  So what are you protecting yourselves against? You are trying,  whether successfully or not,  to hide your assets to protect yourselves, at the expense of disabled people.  

Why is my home less important than yours? 

Set up a limited company and get insurance that protects both of us. I'm smart and savvy enough to check that.  Many disabled people may not be. 

I’m confused?  What has them wanting to protect their personal assets got anything to do with disabled people?  Have I missed something as I can’t see any previous mention of people with disabilities?

Sorry I may have confused some posts as my eyes are bad at the moment. But the point still stands.  Why are the clients assets less important than the OPs? I do understand their point. I don't have to agree with it. 

Jillanddy said:

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

ECSD said:

Jillanddy said:

If there is no financial benefit, even if it can be done, should it be done? It seems like an odd arrangement. You are suggesting putting assets in one name and the business in another? That just screams the question "what are you trying to hide / avoid?". To say nothing of potential risks to one or the other if you split up. I've only ever heard of such arrangements being done in relation to limited companies. And usually exactly because they are definitely hiding something. 

I understand it does sound an odd thing to do, which is why we aren't sure if it even can be done. It's more to protect the house and family car if things were to go seriously wrong within the business. 
Is this a done thing when becoming a sole trader? We would both be putting work in the business venture but only one of us would be classed as self employed as we would both be staying in our current jobs until we could/if we could afford to do this as our main income.

Understandable. And equally so why you want to protect your home.  

Do you get why your clients might want to protect theirs?  Do you not care about them? 

Because, you know,  I'm disabled and I'm lucky - I have an income and money behind me.  Many don't.  So what are you protecting yourselves against? You are trying,  whether successfully or not,  to hide your assets to protect yourselves, at the expense of disabled people.  

Why is my home less important than yours? 

Set up a limited company and get insurance that protects both of us. I'm smart and savvy enough to check that.  Many disabled people may not be. 

I’m confused?  What has them wanting to protect their personal assets got anything to do with disabled people?  Have I missed something as I can’t see any previous mention of people with disabilities?

Sorry I may have confused some posts as my eyes are bad at the moment. But the point still stands.  Why are the clients assets less important than the OPs? I do understand their point. I don't have to agree with it. 

We don’t even know what type of business the OP is thinking of starting yet do we?  Perhaps a client may be at risk of losing money if a poor product or service is delivered but I highly doubt a clients assets (house/car) would be at any risk unless the business is going to be something financial service related (would likely be regulated in some way then anyway).

General_Grant

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

ECSD said:

Jillanddy said:

If there is no financial benefit, even if it can be done, should it be done? It seems like an odd arrangement. You are suggesting putting assets in one name and the business in another? That just screams the question "what are you trying to hide / avoid?". To say nothing of potential risks to one or the other if you split up. I've only ever heard of such arrangements being done in relation to limited companies. And usually exactly because they are definitely hiding something. 

I understand it does sound an odd thing to do, which is why we aren't sure if it even can be done. It's more to protect the house and family car if things were to go seriously wrong within the business. 
Is this a done thing when becoming a sole trader? We would both be putting work in the business venture but only one of us would be classed as self employed as we would both be staying in our current jobs until we could/if we could afford to do this as our main income.

Understandable. And equally so why you want to protect your home.  

Do you get why your clients might want to protect theirs?  Do you not care about them? 

Because, you know,  I'm disabled and I'm lucky - I have an income and money behind me.  Many don't.  So what are you protecting yourselves against? You are trying,  whether successfully or not,  to hide your assets to protect yourselves, at the expense of disabled people.  

Why is my home less important than yours? 

Set up a limited company and get insurance that protects both of us. I'm smart and savvy enough to check that.  Many disabled people may not be. 

I’m confused?  What has them wanting to protect their personal assets got anything to do with disabled people?  Have I missed something as I can’t see any previous mention of people with disabilities?

Sorry I may have confused some posts as my eyes are bad at the moment. But the point still stands.  Why are the clients assets less important than the OPs? I do understand their point. I don't have to agree with it. 

Jillanddy said:

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

ECSD said:

Jillanddy said:

If there is no financial benefit, even if it can be done, should it be done? It seems like an odd arrangement. You are suggesting putting assets in one name and the business in another? That just screams the question "what are you trying to hide / avoid?". To say nothing of potential risks to one or the other if you split up. I've only ever heard of such arrangements being done in relation to limited companies. And usually exactly because they are definitely hiding something. 

I understand it does sound an odd thing to do, which is why we aren't sure if it even can be done. It's more to protect the house and family car if things were to go seriously wrong within the business. 
Is this a done thing when becoming a sole trader? We would both be putting work in the business venture but only one of us would be classed as self employed as we would both be staying in our current jobs until we could/if we could afford to do this as our main income.

Understandable. And equally so why you want to protect your home.  

Do you get why your clients might want to protect theirs?  Do you not care about them? 

Because, you know,  I'm disabled and I'm lucky - I have an income and money behind me.  Many don't.  So what are you protecting yourselves against? You are trying,  whether successfully or not,  to hide your assets to protect yourselves, at the expense of disabled people.  

Why is my home less important than yours? 

Set up a limited company and get insurance that protects both of us. I'm smart and savvy enough to check that.  Many disabled people may not be. 

I’m confused?  What has them wanting to protect their personal assets got anything to do with disabled people?  Have I missed something as I can’t see any previous mention of people with disabilities?

Sorry I may have confused some posts as my eyes are bad at the moment. But the point still stands.  Why are the clients assets less important than the OPs? I do understand their point. I don't have to agree with it. 

We don’t even know what type of business the OP is thinking of starting yet do we?  Perhaps a client may be at risk of losing money if a poor product or service is delivered but I highly doubt a clients assets (house/car) would be at any risk unless the business is going to be something financial service related (would likely be regulated in some way then anyway).

Well the second sentence of the first paragraph of their opening post says "The business would primarily involve installing stairlifts and supplying mobility aids. "    

noitsnotme

General_Grant said:

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

ECSD said:

Jillanddy said:

If there is no financial benefit, even if it can be done, should it be done? It seems like an odd arrangement. You are suggesting putting assets in one name and the business in another? That just screams the question "what are you trying to hide / avoid?". To say nothing of potential risks to one or the other if you split up. I've only ever heard of such arrangements being done in relation to limited companies. And usually exactly because they are definitely hiding something. 

I understand it does sound an odd thing to do, which is why we aren't sure if it even can be done. It's more to protect the house and family car if things were to go seriously wrong within the business. 
Is this a done thing when becoming a sole trader? We would both be putting work in the business venture but only one of us would be classed as self employed as we would both be staying in our current jobs until we could/if we could afford to do this as our main income.

Understandable. And equally so why you want to protect your home.  

Do you get why your clients might want to protect theirs?  Do you not care about them? 

Because, you know,  I'm disabled and I'm lucky - I have an income and money behind me.  Many don't.  So what are you protecting yourselves against? You are trying,  whether successfully or not,  to hide your assets to protect yourselves, at the expense of disabled people.  

Why is my home less important than yours? 

Set up a limited company and get insurance that protects both of us. I'm smart and savvy enough to check that.  Many disabled people may not be. 

I’m confused?  What has them wanting to protect their personal assets got anything to do with disabled people?  Have I missed something as I can’t see any previous mention of people with disabilities?

Sorry I may have confused some posts as my eyes are bad at the moment. But the point still stands.  Why are the clients assets less important than the OPs? I do understand their point. I don't have to agree with it. 

Jillanddy said:

noitsnotme said:

Jillanddy said:

ECSD said:

Jillanddy said:

If there is no financial benefit, even if it can be done, should it be done? It seems like an odd arrangement. You are suggesting putting assets in one name and the business in another? That just screams the question "what are you trying to hide / avoid?". To say nothing of potential risks to one or the other if you split up. I've only ever heard of such arrangements being done in relation to limited companies. And usually exactly because they are definitely hiding something. 

I understand it does sound an odd thing to do, which is why we aren't sure if it even can be done. It's more to protect the house and family car if things were to go seriously wrong within the business. 
Is this a done thing when becoming a sole trader? We would both be putting work in the business venture but only one of us would be classed as self employed as we would both be staying in our current jobs until we could/if we could afford to do this as our main income.

Understandable. And equally so why you want to protect your home.  

Do you get why your clients might want to protect theirs?  Do you not care about them? 

Because, you know,  I'm disabled and I'm lucky - I have an income and money behind me.  Many don't.  So what are you protecting yourselves against? You are trying,  whether successfully or not,  to hide your assets to protect yourselves, at the expense of disabled people.  

Why is my home less important than yours? 

Set up a limited company and get insurance that protects both of us. I'm smart and savvy enough to check that.  Many disabled people may not be. 

I’m confused?  What has them wanting to protect their personal assets got anything to do with disabled people?  Have I missed something as I can’t see any previous mention of people with disabilities?

Sorry I may have confused some posts as my eyes are bad at the moment. But the point still stands.  Why are the clients assets less important than the OPs? I do understand their point. I don't have to agree with it. 

We don’t even know what type of business the OP is thinking of starting yet do we?  Perhaps a client may be at risk of losing money if a poor product or service is delivered but I highly doubt a clients assets (house/car) would be at any risk unless the business is going to be something financial service related (would likely be regulated in some way then anyway).

Well the second sentence of the first paragraph of their opening post says "The business would primarily involve installing stairlifts and supplying mobility aids. "    

Ah ha!! Thank you!!!  I read everything 3 times and still missed that!  My apologies @Jillanddy I will go and book an optician appointment!

ECSD

I think some things may be getting lost in translation here. 
We are thinking of starting up our own business supplying and installing stairlifts and mobility aids. 
We would both be involved in the running of the business, My partner doing the labour work and I doing the paper work for HMRC etc. 
However, we would only be setting the business up in 1 name (only 1 of us would be classed as self employed) as we would both also be keeping our current employment. 
Due to my partner having other financial commitments, we are unsure who is best to be classed as self employed. (Nothing to do with Tax but more CSA payments - A long and complicated story)
My partner is very experience and competent with his work or we would not be thinking of going into a very niche market. So we definitely are NOT setting out to exploit disabled people. Especially as we do have extremely disabled members of our family.
My main concern as an overthinker would be if we were to end up in a financial situation where it meant bankruptcy for the self employed person, would be potentially loosing our family home. I'm sure this is a worry for anyone who is starting a new self employed business? 
I am merely asking for some advice on setting up this new business venture whilst protecting my family but also not doing anything that may mean we are breaking the law or will end up in trouble with HMRC.
Our main question is if I was to be classed and self employed, and my partner went out to do the work in peoples homes, would this work if the insurance was in his name, even if the self employed person is me? (Again showing we are going to make sure we have all necessary insurance to protect us and the customer in an unlikely event that things go wrong)

noitsnotme

You can be employed and self employed at the same time.  As your partner would be doing the actual work/fitting it would make more sense for him to be self employed and then you can be his employee.

Alternatively you could be self employed and employ your partner as your worker.

That still doesn’t address why you’re worried about going bankrupt.  As I asked before, why do feel that is a risk?  You would need to borrow money you can’t pay back or would need to be sued for shoddy work to come close to bankruptcy.  It’s possible to run businesses without doing that.

And as said, if it worries you that much then set up a limited company.  There will be additional expense and admin but it will mostly protect your personal assets.

I have set up and run 2 limited companies, the first of which started as a sole trader initially.

noitsnotme

With regards to your husband and the CSA (I assume he’s trying to hide income to pay less child support), I don’t think your husband could do all the work for you for free and then for you to receive all the money and he gets paid nothing.  I think you’re on dodgy ground there but probably best to ask an accountant for professional advice.

noitsnotme

I guess you could be the self employed business owner, your partner your employee and then you would have to pay him minimum wage (currently £8.91 p/h).  Or set up a limited company, you as director and your partner an employee earning minimum wage.

Grumpy_chap

ECSD said:

 
We are thinking of starting up our own business supplying and installing stairlifts and mobility aids. 
We would both be involved in the running of the business, My partner doing the labour work and I doing the paper work for HMRC etc. 

My main concern as an overthinker would be if we were to end up in a financial situation where it meant bankruptcy

I really think setting up as a Ltd Co and taking out the requisite insurances to cover workmanship in the customers home would be the most appropriate route.

A Ltd Co is flexible as you can have the same or different shareholdings (dividends) and also take the same or different salaries as employees.  And you can have a trading name that is neither of you and does not need to reference you as individuals for payment.

Sole Trader simply does not seem right here as you would not be "sole" though a sole trader can operate an unincorporated business with employees.

Ltd Co also allows you to separate the family home from the business, though the split is not absolute (e.g fraud / wrongful trading and the Directors can still be pursued for personal assets).  I have to say, though, considering bankruptcy so fore in the thinking from the outset does not inspire confidence that this is a viable business.  As others have asked, why do you think bankruptcy and pursuit for claims by customers to be so likely? 

I do understand that you could damage a client's property when installing a stairlift, but this is either going to be small and localised damage (repair some blown plaster) or covered by your trade insurance (drilled through the water pipe).  Plus, your husband's skill at doing the job as a strong mitigation against such events occuring in the first place.