Hollyoaks cast - changes due to Social Security Regulations

Hollyoaks cast - changes due to Social...

Didn't find your answer?

Dear All

I have a problem, and I really need some help if I may kindly ask you all to assist !

I have just taken a client , a famous actress, the agreement my client had with her agent was that the agent will make all her payments due via her limited company, now that we have obtained professional clearance, to my surprise I have noticed that the agent had generated payslips to the director of the company ( her ) now the former accountant has treated those payments as revenue generated by her company , before I invite the client to come over to discuss this, I should be grateful if  someone has dealt with similar situations as I need to clearly understand this.

I am confused here, why would she pay NIC when the company is contracted and even if she was not a limited company she is also self employed

does this make any sense to you ??

Kindly assist as this is not an area I am familiar with !

Thanks

Replies (18)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Stepurhan
By stepurhan
15th Jul 2014 13:57

Entertainer rules

Under entertainer rules, abolished from 6 April 2014, people in the entertainment industry were treated as employed for NI purposes. Could it be related to that? Hard to tell without seeing a payslip.

Incidentally, I think specifying the show they appear in is dangerously close to breaching client confidentiality.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By nick farrow
15th Jul 2014 11:46

Didn't the change come in 6th April 2014?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Soper
15th Jul 2014 11:52

2014 surely?

The rules re NIC and the entertainment industry changed from 2014 onwards, not 2013, and now we have a completely consistent set of rules - if you are an employee you pay and your employer pays NIC as usual, but a self employed entertainer only pays as self employed.

However in the wake of the ITV Services appeal where the old treatment was upheld, and liability to NIC was based on whether a "salary" was being paid ("salary" being a payment for a period of time in the opinion of HMRC and the Court of Appeal), your client and ITV would have been subject to the old rules and HMRC made it clear that they expected those rules to be adhered to until 6 April this year.

It also sounds as if either the agent has  been ignoring the existence of the company, or the former accountant has tried to interpose the company unsuccessfully as the contract for her services was probably concluded by him with her and ITV, not the company and ITV.

Tread carefully, make sure everything is clarified, get hold of the contracts and read and understand them, this industry is one which is notorious for claims that accountant X is better than accountant Y even though they are not (if you know what I mean - nudge, nudge, wink, wink) which is, I suspect, why so many entertainers get caught up in the naughtier tax avoidance scams (sorry schemes)...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nick farrow
15th Jul 2014 12:04

very interestng Paul

very interesting - the other issue is that were residuals/royalties/secondary  income etc. is generated from acting contracts entered into as a sole trader I believe that that income should continue to be returned as personal income and shouldn't be assigned to the company

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
15th Jul 2014 12:05

Oops Typo

Yes, the change was 6/4/2014. I mistyped the date, now corrected.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Connie72
15th Jul 2014 12:50

thank you all this is very helpful indeed

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andy.partridge
15th Jul 2014 14:35

Same person?

Has anyone ever seen Connie72 and Enfield72 in the same room together?

Unless the client is either Diane Langton or Gillian Taylforth I think anonymity will be preserved. . .

Thanks (2)
Replying to TaxAngel:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
15th Jul 2014 15:09

Data aggregation

andy.partridge wrote:
Unless the client is either Diane Langton or Gillian Taylforth I think anonymity will be preserved. . .
For now at least. A few different careless details in a few different queries and it might be possible to pierce the veil of anonymity. The internet has made it a lot easier to put these things together. Unless you consider all Hollyoaks stars famous, that narrows it down further anyway.

My point was that it had no relevance to the question, nor did the fact that they were female. Whilst some questioners go too far and leave all detail on everything out, there is generally no reason to include personally identifiable information. The facts already given narrow it down to a pretty small group so, while not outright breached, confidentiality is definitely at risk. Performer in well-known TV drama would be sufficient for the query while maintaining a very wide field.

 

Thanks (2)
By mrme89
15th Jul 2014 14:39

Woops, someone forgot which account they should be logged in to.

 

Tut tut tut - breach of site rules. You must now be hanged.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By andy.partridge
15th Jul 2014 15:12

My point was a poorly delivered comment on their profile and expected career longevity..

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
15th Jul 2014 15:27

Not the babes surely?

In a certain section of the community (predominantly male) the Hollyoaks "babes" are extremely well-known. ;-)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andy.partridge
15th Jul 2014 15:36

Community

Do you mean the AccountingWeb community? CareInThe community . . . ?

I've never seen it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Connie72
15th Jul 2014 21:41

yes same person

for clarity  sake and to avoid misunderstandings my enfield72 account for some reason does not notify me when there is a community discussion and is linked to my personal account, so sometimes i post from home my connie72 is linked to my work email account, so i see no harm or dishonesty here, but rather support eact other

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By andy.partridge
15th Jul 2014 21:59

You might not

Connie72 wrote:

for clarity  sake and to avoid misunderstandings my enfield72 account for some reason does not notify me when there is a community discussion and is linked to my personal account, so sometimes i post from home my connie72 is linked to my work email account, so i see no harm or dishonesty here, but rather support eact other

 

But it has been used to cause harm in the past and is against site rules. You might want to check with the moderators.
Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
16th Jul 2014 08:41

Read the rules

Connie72 wrote:
for clarity  sake and to avoid misunderstandings my enfield72 account for some reason does not notify me when there is a community discussion and is linked to my personal account, so sometimes i post from home my connie72 is linked to my work email account, so i see no harm or dishonesty here, but rather support eact other
If nothing else, comments from two different users will be seen as two different users commenting. This is, at best, confusing. Your comment that they "support each other" is apposite. If you have a second account, then the temptation to defend yourself with it if you meet a hostile response to a query is great. You say you see no dishonesty, but dishonesty doesn't just have to be saying something that is untrue. Until the second account made a post that was clearly from the OP, there was no reason for anyone to think the two accounts were the same person.

But rather more fundamentally, it is against the site rules. See the sixth bullet point under Community Do's and Don'ts here.

In all honesty, I really don't see the need for multiple logins. At worse it is a mild inconvenience not being able to get a password reminder where you are. On the flip side, one account means you get all alerts in one place.

Thanks (1)
By Dan Izzard
16th Jul 2014 16:17

Multiple Accounts

As stated above, multiple accounts on the thread are against community rules. On this occasion we have closed one account to keep things simple and the other account is now dormant retaining the content that was posted.

Thanks all

Thanks (1)
avatar
By aes-tax
18th Jul 2014 10:42

IR35?

Has IR35 been considered as if end user is deducting NI Iam sure HMRC would be inclined to say that IR35 applied in your client's case?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Connie72
23rd Jul 2014 00:05

still dont understand

so what would you more experienced than me guys recommend , the problem is the contracts are on my client's name between the agent and my client, all the revenue has been reflected in the limited company, but as mentioned before he was providing her payslips now my question is what implications will my client now have and what can I possibly do to remedy this mess up

I must be honest that I do not have much experience within this industry ! but I always want to learn and get involved in various industries !

 

Thanks

Thanks (0)