On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:10:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 18:50:17 on
Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Anthony R. Gold remarked:
As he now claims to have been employed,

...

maybe you owe him nothing and all his gross pay must go to HMRC, in
addition to your own missing contributions.

Remembering also that in order to introduce him into your PAYE scheme,
he will have to provide a P45 from his previous employment/benefits, so
there's nothing can be done until he produces that.

No, the employer's liability to pay contributions is effective as soon
as employment starts (and they must be paid within a fairly short
time, otherwise interest and penalties acrue). If the required
paperwork to determine the correct code for the employee is not
available, there is an "emergency code" which determines the amount
payable. The employers' guide to PAYE deals with this in detail; any
tax office can advise.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

wrote:

My intention was to settle the bill if the Police decided not to
proceed any further.

If they decide to prosecute, the bill will only be paid after
conviction or aquittal, and if convicted, only after recovery of the
money taken.

Doesnt sound unreasonable does it ?

In brief, yes it does sound unreasonable. Innocent until proven guilty
should ring a few bells. And there's also the point that irrespective of
what he has done, you and he had a contract.

However as Tony Gold has pointed out, since he's claiming he was an
employee you as an employer must make appropriate deductions from his
pay.

In message , at 20:10:04 on
Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Don Aitken remarked:
Remembering also that in order to introduce him into your PAYE scheme,
he will have to provide a P45 from his previous employment/benefits, so
there's nothing can be done until he produces that.

No, the employer's liability to pay contributions is effective as soon
as employment starts (and they must be paid within a fairly short
time, otherwise interest and penalties acrue). If the required
paperwork to determine the correct code for the employee is not
available, there is an "emergency code" which determines the amount
payable. The employers' guide to PAYE deals with this in detail; any
tax office can advise.

I'm aware of the emergency tax code regime, but doesn't the employer
need at least the employee's NI number first?
--
Roland Perry

On Oct 11, 8:25 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
My intention was to settle the bill if the Police decided not to
proceed any further.

If they decide to prosecute, the bill will only be paid after
conviction or aquittal, and if convicted, only after recovery of the
money taken.

Doesnt sound unreasonable does it ?

In brief, yes it does sound unreasonable. Innocent until proven guilty
should ring a few bells.

£150 missing, nobody but him had any opportunity whatsoever to take
it. That proves his guilt beyond any doubt (to me at least).

And there's also the point that irrespective of
what he has done, you and he had a contract.

I suppose we did, he was self employed and provided a service, his
bill is just over £100, he owes me another £50 .



However as Tony Gold has pointed out, since he's claiming he was an
employee you as an employer must make appropriate deductions from his
pay.

That actually gives me a problem, as I only wanted someone for a
maximum of 16 hours per week ( I didnt want the hassle of NI
contributions etc), he sometimes took longer than 16 hours to complete
jobs. If thats the case i would have to pay NI contributions for him,
it wasnt part of the deal, neither was being an employee (his choice
not mine). Never under any circumstances would i have employed him for
more than 16 hours if he had been an employee.

Furthermore if i make reductions, I'm admitting he was an employee. He
simply wasn't, and didn't want to be.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:45:09 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 20:10:04 on
Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Don Aitken remarked:
Remembering also that in order to introduce him into your PAYE scheme,
he will have to provide a P45 from his previous employment/benefits, so
there's nothing can be done until he produces that.

No, the employer's liability to pay contributions is effective as soon
as employment starts (and they must be paid within a fairly short
time, otherwise interest and penalties acrue). If the required
paperwork to determine the correct code for the employee is not
available, there is an "emergency code" which determines the amount
payable. The employers' guide to PAYE deals with this in detail; any
tax office can advise.

I'm aware of the emergency tax code regime, but doesn't the employer
need at least the employee's NI number first?

It's a long time since I had to do this stuff, but I think you just
put "not known". The liability arises from the fact of employment.
even if you know nothing about they employee at all. I have a vague
momory that the guide specifies what to do when you don't even have a
name.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:20:17 +0100, wrote:

On Oct 9, 8:20 pm, Owain wrote:
snip


Have you reported the alleged theft to the police?

Yes, I believe he's been arrested and released on bail.

My intention was to settle the bill if the Police decided not to
proceed any further.

If they decide to prosecute, the bill will only be paid after
conviction or aquittal, and if convicted, only after recovery of the
money taken.

Doesnt sound unreasonable does it ?


It may not sound "unreasonable" to you, but it does sound illegal,
whether "reasonable" or not.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Push the limit, and the limit will move away!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In message , at 19:10:07 on Sat, 11 Oct
2008, Roland Perry wibbled

Remembering also that in order to introduce him into your PAYE scheme,
he will have to provide a P45 from his previous employment/benefits, so
there's nothing can be done until he produces that.

Not so.

A recent P45 must be used, if available, to determine PAYE tax code and
thus any tax deductions. If not available then a P46 declaration signed
by the employee must be used in determining the correct emergency code
to be used. In the absence of a P45 or P46 then a code of BR must be
applied.

NI deductions once the NI threshold is reached are independent of the
tax code applied.


--
Pedt

In message , at 18:50:17 on
Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Anthony R. Gold wibbled
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:10:06 +0100, wrote:

I have still not paid his last invoice, he is now threatening to take
me to a tribunal as he now claims he was an employee.

I really can't see what right you have to withhold any pay, whether it is
self-employed or employed. He worked and you owe. Whether you have a
claim against him, or the police have a case against him, both seem to me
to be unconnected with your clear contractual towards him.

Agreed.

As he now claims to have been employed, and from the sounds of that he is
right,

It would appear to be so unless the OP is withholding some critical
information

you also have obligations both to make insurance payments and also
to withhold money from his pay for tax and insurance.

His pay will be deemed to be net of tax and NI.

As that obligation
will have started eight weeks ago, because clearly can't ever have been
self-employed if he was not at the end,

Agreed.

you must calculate eight weeks
worth of withholdings before paying him the first penny. So maybe you owe
him nothing and all his gross pay must go to HMRC, in addition to your own
missing contributions.

Not so. If a decision is made that he was employed, the position will
most likely be that he has been paid net wages. Therefore deducting
unpaid tax and NI from the final payment will be an unlawful deduction
from wages.

The OP would then need to back calculate what the gross pay would have
been net of tax and EENI (and without a P45 or P46 the HMRC rules are to
apply a BR tax code). He can then calculate any ERNI due. Tax+EENI+ERNI
will then be paid by the employer to HRMC under his Accounts Office
Reference as an employer.

I'd like to make an example of him, and sue him for the missing money,
though admittedley I only have circumstantial evidence.

You will waste time and also good money after bad.

Agreed.

IANAL but I have worked as Technical Manager on contract to the Inland
Revenge.

--
Pedt

In message , at
01:10:07 on Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Owain
remarked:
I'm aware of the emergency tax code regime, but doesn't the employer
need at least the employee's NI number first?

The employer would normally obtain this as part of the checking to
ensure the employee has the legal right to work in the UK.

And what evidence would a born-Brit have *apart* from a P45 from a
previous employer?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 08:35:05 on
Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Pedt remarked:
you also have obligations both to make insurance payments and also
to withhold money from his pay for tax and insurance.

His pay will be deemed to be net of tax and NI.

That's a very good point. iirc You can't go back and make retrospective
deductions of NI under any circumstances, but I can't see why the final
payment can't be made taking into account any back-tax due.

After all, even if the OP doesn't deduct that tax [1] then the next
employer will [2], so at the end of the day the employee is not out of
pocket either way.

[1] Could be zero, of course, but as others have said more likely to be
"emergency code".

[2] Or maybe the next employer will end up refunding the emergency-code
tax.
--
Roland Perry