Are there any other self employed (ie freelance) drivers on here?
yes me 
I started off that way, went for 18 months then brought my own wagon. DOH! 
Speck:
I started off that way, went for 18 months then brought my own wagon. DOH!
Yep, me too.
I did it the other way round, had the truck~~, game keeper turned poacher 
~~
I am one too. There are quite a lot of us I think.
Paul
repton:
I am one too. There are quite a lot of us I think.Paul
We are not to be confused with the “LTD” crowd 
I have been asked a million times, are you a S/E Ltd driver, then you can work for us, BUT, if you are a “sole Trader” S/E driver, sorry we cannot use you 
There is only one description that descibes my situation, I am a Self-employed, sole trader, WTFP ■■?
There is no such thing as a LTD self-employed person FFS
Eitherway, I`m busy
Stanley Mitchell:
repton:
I am one too. There are quite a lot of us I think.Paul
We are not to be confused with the “LTD” crowd
Well, I am one of the “LTD crowd”, I guess I was saying yes to the “freelance” in HC’s original question rather than the “self employed” part.
Paul
Stanley Mitchell:
repton:
I am one too. There are quite a lot of us I think.Paul
We are not to be confused with the “LTD” crowd
I have been asked a million times, are you a S/E Ltd driver, then you can work for us, BUT, if you are a “sole Trader” S/E driver, sorry we cannot use you
There is only one description that descibes my situation, I am a Self-employed, sole trader, WTFP ■■?
There is no such thing as a LTD self-employed person FFS
Eitherway, I`m busy
This sort of leads into my next question…
Has anybody had any problems with the tax man (income)
Whilst I was working for one of my customers they had an audit carried out by the H.M.R.C and they were saying that I should be classed as an employee because “I do not supply my own tools”
I then went to an interview with H.M.R.C to establish my postion in which I explained that :-
I pay for my own training
I pay for my own adveretising
My customers sign my term and conditions
I invoice them for the hours I work
I have quite a few regular customers (as well as some ad hoc)
etc etc etc
This interview has now been passed on to another office for them to assess.
I have been told off record that if I started a ltd company there would be no problem as I would be an “employee” of that company
I would rather not start a ltd company because of all the extra paperwork and expense (especially on the accounts side) just to conduct what I consider to be a “paper exercise” as in effect nothing has really changed except for some legal terminolligy
When I was contracting for telecoms companies it always used to be the case that to be considered a contractor or freelance by the HMRC you had to supply your own tools and, if necessary, be able to send another person in to do the job.
I know this is slightly different, but in my experience companies want to see a Certificate of Incorporation (LTD status) in order to consider you self-employed. I think the HMRC can come back to the employer if the employee/contractor/freelance does not pay the necessary tax, but if they can prove they have made the necessary checks - i.e. seen the Cert of Corp. - they can distance themselves from any action.
Also, there used to a rule that you had to prove that a certain percentage of your income was not coming from one source - one company - but billing mates then them billing you always got around that problem.
BUT I am not an expert in this area, as my accountant knows!
Going back a few years, we had a freelance driver who worked for us between 2 - 5 days a week. He did have an ■■■■■■ van, which in the space of about 2.5 years we probably used about 3 or 4 times.
He moved house and went and bought a small shop. Shortly after we had a tax investigations and it turned out he had not been paying tax, so we got hit for it.
Our argument was that he wasn’t paid sick or holiday pay as our drivers are. He didn’t wear a uniform. He had other customers, though we were his main customer. He was free to turn down work if he wanted or needed to. He invoiced us work work done.
It is a bit of a minefield and as my accountant said at the time, ’ The tax man has the pitch, the ball, 11 men and there’s just you’.
Experience, it’s a great teacher. 
The problem is that Self employed (sole traders) are not defined in legislation so it’s down to interpretation of case law or how Hector is feeling on any given day.
Basically what Jonah 1 said should pass the assessment for self-employed.
I pay for my own training
I pay for my own adveretising
My customers sign my term and conditions
I invoice them for the hours I work
I have quite a few regular customers (as well as some ad hoc)
etc etc etc
The big ones are that you are not under their “direction and control” (you choose the work you do and how it is carried out), “right of substitution” (able to send a replacement at your cost) and that there is no “mutuality of obligation” (their not expected to offer you regular work and if offered you’re not expected to accept it).
if you are a “sole Trader” S/E driver, sorry we cannot use you
This happens because as far back as 1988 the government introduced laws that made the next person in the chain liable if a sole trader didn’t pay his taxes
The same laws stopped Agencies being able to work with sole traders (agencies can only engage with you if you are a limited company or on their books).
Confession time: I know all this because I run a company that helps sole trading drivers who want to take on agency work but don’t want to change to ltd. We act as a type of umbrella company where our ltd sits between you and the agency and allows you to carry on as a sole trader.
Obviously I’m not going to say our company name as this post is for your information and not advertising.
Lonners:
The problem is that Self employed (sole traders) are not defined in legislation so it’s down to interpretation of case law or how Hector is feeling on any given day.Basically what Jonah 1 said should pass the assessment for self-employed.
I pay for my own training
I pay for my own adveretising
My customers sign my term and conditions
I invoice them for the hours I work
I have quite a few regular customers (as well as some ad hoc)
etc etc etcThe big ones are that you are not under their “direction and control” (you choose the work you do and how it is carried out), “right of substitution” (able to send a replacement at your cost) and that there is no “mutuality of obligation” (their not expected to offer you regular work and if offered you’re not expected to accept it).
if you are a “sole Trader” S/E driver, sorry we cannot use you
This happens because as far back as 1988 the government introduced laws that made the next person in the chain liable if a sole trader didn’t pay his taxes
The same laws stopped Agencies being able to work with sole traders (agencies can only engage with you if you are a limited company or on their books).
Confession time: I know all this because I run a company that helps sole trading drivers who want to take on agency work but don’t want to change to ltd. We act as a type of umbrella company where our ltd sits between you and the agency and allows you to carry on as a sole trader.
Obviously I’m not going to say our company name as this post is for your information and not advertising.
I`m back, I told you I was busy
I work “sub-contract” for a number of agencies, they have no problem with me being S/E, one made me sign a HMRC decleration, the other nothing…
So, that stops the “only Ltd” situation in its tracks, also, there is a lot pressure from HMRC at the moment, to convert as many S/E as possible to “Ltd” status, because the tax dodge is a thorn in their side, it is`nt a lot in the scheme of things, taking into account the risk we take in not getting work.
But, as the ■■■■■■■■■ hole in the treasury, is getting bigger, every little helps 
I work “sub-contract” for a number of agencies, they have no problem with me being S/E, one made me sign a HMRC decleration, the other nothing…
So, that stops the “only Ltd” situation in its tracks
Stanley there may well be exceptions to the rule and without exact knowledge of the set up these agencies are using, I centainly won’t make any comment on them.
The point I wanted to explain is that the majority of agencies will not take on sole traders direct because of clause 134 of the Income & Corporation Tax Act 1988 which defines worker provided by agencies as being “duties of an office or employment and assessable to income tax under Schedule E” (PAYE to me and you). This also applies if the worker is though a partnership or unincorporated body.
As our company is all about facilitating self employed sole traders I’m happy that you can secure work, but your earlier post …
I have been asked a million times, are you a S/E Ltd driver, then you can work for us, BUT, if you are a “sole Trader” S/E driver, sorry we cannot use you
…suggested that this was not always the case?
Lonners:
I work “sub-contract” for a number of agencies, they have no problem with me being S/E, one made me sign a HMRC decleration, the other nothing…
So, that stops the “only Ltd” situation in its tracks
Stanley there may well be exceptions to the rule and without exact knowledge of the set up these agencies are using, I centainly won’t make any comment on them.
The point I wanted to explain is that the majority of agencies will not take on sole traders direct because of clause 134 of the Income & Corporation Tax Act 1988 which defines worker provided by agencies as being “duties of an office or employment and assessable to income tax under Schedule E” (PAYE to me and you). This also applies if the worker is though a partnership or unincorporated body.
As our company is all about facilitating self employed sole traders I’m happy that you can secure work, but your earlier post …
I have been asked a million times, are you a S/E Ltd driver, then you can work for us, BUT, if you are a “sole Trader” S/E driver, sorry we cannot use you
…suggested that this was not always the case?
Thats what I was saying, there are exceptions, my accountants do not understand where the "anti" interpretation comes from, they have cleared my operation with my local tax office, and if HMRC are happy, then Im happy
The wording which my tax office are happy with, in regard to working for agencies, as a sole trader is SUB CONTRACTOR, as long as I have “X” amount of other customers [agencies], and not just one.
I keep coming up against people who do not really understand the situation, its dissappointing, but it ain`t the end of the world
Everybody seems concerned regarding non payment of tax by the sole trader, as I offer a copy of my N.I.C. statement [13 weeks in arrears] as proof that I am doing my legal bit, this should keep everybody happy, as HMRC would not issue a request for payment, if I wasnt paying my previous bill~~.~~</strike> <strike>~~I also have my home address on my business cards and invoices, Im traceable, I have a home / car / credit rating / investments which tie me in to the establishment. 
~~
My customer was told at the time that if I worked for/via an agency then there would be no problem as I would be “employed” by the agency.
This would defeat the object really of me going freelance,The whole point with my business is that I am cheaper than an agency but I can still earn more than if I was employed by one.
I cant see how logically speaking it can be said the I am not self employed if I only earn when I am working, I have more than 6 different customers who use me regularly,I am only paid if I invoice my customer,I am responsible for paying my National Insurance contributions, I am paying Income Tax on Self Assesment terms,I dont get paid holiday/sick pay,I pay for my own advertising ,training ,tacho’s, etc.etc
But we shall see,I’m still awaiting their verdict.
Jonah 1:
My customer was told at the time that if I worked for/via an agency then there would be no problem as I would be “employed” by the agency.This would defeat the object really of me going freelance,The whole point with my business is that I am cheaper than an agency but I can still earn more than if I was employed by one.
I cant see how logically speaking it can be said the I am not self employed if I only earn when I am working, I have more than 6 different customers who use me regularly,I am only paid if I invoice my customer,I am responsible for paying my National Insurance contributions, I am paying Income Tax on Self Assesment terms,I dont get paid holiday/sick pay,I pay for my own advertising ,training ,tacho’s, etc.et
But we shall see,I’m still awaiting their verdict.
TBF Jonah 1, I find it easier to sub to agencies than find my own work, they do the hard work finding work, paying me quicker than a haulier would, and, I can please myself when or where I work.
I would soon ■■■■ a direct customer off, if I started picking and choosing which work I wanted to do, the agencies don`t seem too bothered.
BTW, my job`s just stopped, no work for two days
No work FFS, I`ve been dragged into a ASDA this afternoon, it was heaving
I`m now getting a list of things to do tomorrow, while she is at work FFS.
A mate of mine has his own haulage company, and employs a mutual mate to drive occasional night shifts, nothing regular, maybe one or two a week. Our mutual mate also has his own Plant hire business among other interests is self employed and VAT reg’d. HRMC went into Haulage mates office, said the invoices weren’t valid, and made him pay a considerable amount in back PAYE. Although this is absolutely a MMTM. It is also true, and if a bit vague, that is only because those involved would probably prefer to keep it so.
renaultman:
A mate of mine has his own haulage company, and employs a mutual mate to drive occasional night shifts, nothing regular, maybe one or two a week. Our mutual mate also has his own Plant hire business among other interests is self employed and VAT reg’d. HRMC went into Haulage mates office, said the invoices weren’t valid, and made him pay a considerable amount in back PAYE. Although this is absolutely a MMTM. It is also true, and if a bit vague, that is only because those involved would probably prefer to keep it so.
RM, something dont seem right with this, it may have been a dodgy invoice with spurious info, and your mate didnt want to grass him up
or, HMRC were using bully boy tactics, eitherway, his accountants should have been involved, it sounds very dodgy IMHO.
Stanley Mitchell:
renaultman:
A mate of mine has his own haulage company, and employs a mutual mate to drive occasional night shifts, nothing regular, maybe one or two a week. Our mutual mate also has his own Plant hire business among other interests is self employed and VAT reg’d. HRMC went into Haulage mates office, said the invoices weren’t valid, and made him pay a considerable amount in back PAYE. Although this is absolutely a MMTM. It is also true, and if a bit vague, that is only because those involved would probably prefer to keep it so.RM, something don
t seem right with this, it may have been a dodgy invoice with spurious info, and your mate didnt want to grass him upor, HMRC were using bully boy tactics, eitherway, his accountants should have been involved, it sounds very dodgy IMHO.
I advised him to fight it, I think the case itself was perfectly fightable it was whatever else that may come up, he was a bit afraid of. Very expensive fear mind
renaultman:
Stanley Mitchell:
renaultman:
A mate of mine has his own haulage company, and employs a mutual mate to drive occasional night shifts, nothing regular, maybe one or two a week. Our mutual mate also has his own Plant hire business among other interests is self employed and VAT reg’d. HRMC went into Haulage mates office, said the invoices weren’t valid, and made him pay a considerable amount in back PAYE. Although this is absolutely a MMTM. It is also true, and if a bit vague, that is only because those involved would probably prefer to keep it so.RM, something don
t seem right with this, it may have been a dodgy invoice with spurious info, and your mate didnt want to grass him upor, HMRC were using bully boy tactics, eitherway, his accountants should have been involved, it sounds very dodgy IMHO.
I advised him to fight it, I think the case itself was perfectly fightable it was whatever else that may come up, he was a bit afraid of. Very expensive fear mind
Enough said