from Accounting legal -
an issue that doesn't seem to be very clear is who should the funds be paid to. If they are paid to the contractor company then clearly the company must be maintained and incur a loss in doing so. So all the debate about whether or not the company should be wound up is irrelevant, as it can't be.
So, could or should the monies be paid directly to the contractor as they are already nett of taxes, thus bypassing the company?
The problem as I see it there, is that the contract will be between the contractor's company and the agency/client assuming that the contractor doesn't take an FTC or uses an umbrella, and so the agency/client would not want to pay the monies direct to an individual. So what does the panel think?
an issue that doesn't seem to be very clear is who should the funds be paid to. If they are paid to the contractor company then clearly the company must be maintained and incur a loss in doing so. So all the debate about whether or not the company should be wound up is irrelevant, as it can't be.
So, could or should the monies be paid directly to the contractor as they are already nett of taxes, thus bypassing the company?
The problem as I see it there, is that the contract will be between the contractor's company and the agency/client assuming that the contractor doesn't take an FTC or uses an umbrella, and so the agency/client would not want to pay the monies direct to an individual. So what does the panel think?
Comment