Can a company handle paying taxes and other bureaucracy work for a freelancer Pardon my terminology. I'm very much not a lawyer, but I used to watch Ally McBeal as a kid, so I think I got the hang of this. This is actually a subset of a vastly larger problem, so the arrangements may seem a bit weird. This is an EU question, but having any common law jurisdiction answers would certainly help, as would anything even tangential on this. We have the following legal entities: Main company X, located in either Ireland or Northern Ireland (UK) Accounting company Y, located somewhere in EU, could be the same country as X if that makes things easier. Freelancer A (and others), located somewhere in EU, ideally the globe. X has made a contract for service with A. X wants to lower the bureaucracy overhead for A, as it is essential for the business model for make it easy to join as a freelancer (think Uber). Ideally this would be as hassle free for A as having a contract of service with X. For this, X has two different models: 1) A sends X all the necessary paperwork. When A gets paid, X pays income taxes, pension payments, VAT and whatnot for A and sends the rest for A. 2) A sends Y the paperwork, X sends Y the full amount payable to A and the info required, Y pays the taxes etc and sends the rest to A. Are either of these (or modifications of those) possible without the relevant authorities interpreting this as a contract of service instead of as a contract for service as intended. It is worth noting, that even without X handling tax bureaucracy for A, it is not completely clear if the model would pass as a contract for service. Based on the IRS 20 questions on the subject 15 or so say it's for, 3 are indecisive and 2 say of. It would also not make any sense for X and A to have a contract of service relation (again, think Uber). EDIT: A few things to clarify: Our goal is not (necessarily) to minimize taxes for A, but to minimize bureaucracy overhead for working small sporadic gigs for the company Scope of A's work could range from anywhere from an hour to a few years Ideally A would just have to provide X (or Y) the required paperwork, then receive payments as if he would be an employee and not have to worry about taxes or social payments. Having an employer-employee relationship between Y and A is almost as bad as having it between X and A The main reason why we want to avoid employer-employee relationship is not tax optimization or avoiding social payments, but avoiding minimum wage regulations. This may seem quite exploitative, so I might need to open up the idea a bit more: The point of company X is essentially to provide a legal &amp; software (latter one being our core competence and first one just a major obstacle) platform for collaboration between the mentioned 'independent contractors'. As a simplified example that wont catch many of the reasons why we need a legal platform as well: Freelancers A and B collaborate together to build the ultimate fart app. A handles the coding and clocks in 100h while B farts on mic for 50 hours, both work being deemed equally valuable. When the project cashes in, A will get 2/3 of the profits and B 1/3. A and B can also sell their equity to 3rd parties any time they want. This would be implemented by having a (quite exotic) contract for service between company X and independent contractors A and B. Now consider the two following scenarios: The app ends up grossing very little or nothing at all, meaning that hourly rate for A and B would be way below minimum wage. This would obviously mean a disaster for company X if the authorities interpreted the relationship as employer-employee, so that is why we absolutely need to steer clear of it. Freelancer C joins the project and does 10 hours of design work. Let's say that C his main source of income from a steady 9-5 elsewhere and does not really do freelancing other than this gig. While setting up a service company for A and B would possibly be an option (given that this is not their only collaboration under company X), the overhead for C would be completely unbearable.
This is a well established model in the UK. One route is the umbrella company. Y here would be the umbrella company. A would then either be providing services to Y or be employed by Y. You may be wondering what use it is if A is employed by Y. The answer here is that whilst A may not benefit from the tax treatment, X does not bear the burden of running PAYE etc. Further, because of regulations such as IR35, it may be that there is a doubt as to whether employment tax apply even if there is a contract for service. Essentially disguised employment means taxes are levied on the employer as if an employment existed; however, in this situation X has the comfort that if this arises they will (normally) fall on Y rather than X. Another route is the service company, where normally A himself will own it (or it is owned between A and A's spouse), take a combination of salary and dividends out (using two allowances if owned between spouses), and he will bill X or Y; companies exist which will perform all the necessary paperwork to do this (in which case Y is called a managed service company), as opposed to a personal service company (if A sets it up himself). It's not clear where you are based, but if you are based outside the UK (and possibly if you are inside the UK) there are accountancy companies that specialise in setting all this up.
Please note that I can't provide legal advice and consider the following as suggestions you can and should discuss with a lawyer of your choice: You are probably member of a tax-advisory association (Lohnsteuerhilfeverein). These associations can only advise its members on their tax declarations. Therefore you are indeed a member, not a "member". As a member you are presumably obliged to pay a yearly membership fee, and from your initial question I infer that the membership cannot be terminated before three years have passed. That and when you have to pay your fee is most likely provided for in the association's constitution. Payment of the fee does not depend on an invoice, because the requirements of § 14 UStG are most likely not met: the association is not a trader (Unternehmer), nor is a membership a performance (Leistung). Whether you have to pay a penalty depends on the wording of the section regarding the fee in the constitution. If your membership rights have been infringed by not giving you notice of the annual general meeting, this would not give you a defence or objection against the payment of the fee. You could report this matter to the competent watchdog (Aufsichtsbehörde) under § 27(1) StBerG, though: Aufsichtsbehörde ist die Oberfinanzdirektion oder die durch die Landesregierung bestimmte Landesfinanzbehörde. 2 Sie führt die Aufsicht über die Lohnsteuerhilfevereine, die ihren Sitz im Bezirk der Aufsichtsbehörde haben. That is either the Oberfinanzdirektion or the Landesfinanzbehörde in the German state where the association has its statutory seat.
Maybe, but maybe not; or, It all depends As with most questions about private foundations, the answer to your question depends on the details about: a) your specific situation; and, b) how exactly the IRS has interpreted the relevant tax code. To figure out what options you have, and which will work best for you, you need to talk to a tax attorney who has worked with foundations. That said, it seems to me that the natural way to accomplish your goal is by treating your work as a “direct charitable activity” of the foundation. “Direct charitable activities” are, as the name suggests, charitable activities that the foundation does itself, rather than paying someone else to do. The money used to pay for “direct charitable activities” does count against the distribution requirement. You really need to talk to a knowledgeable lawyer. In the meantime, you might find this survey of the relevant law, or this survey of what foundations are actually doing, useful. Talk to an attorney about “direct charitable activities”!
Yes. A company from one member state may do business in any E.U. state so long as it complies with local law in the course of doing so. For example, a Dutch company doing business in Germany must still pay German taxes and comply with German labor laws for its German employees. But, it doesn't have to form a German subsidiary to do business in Germany.
They provide a snail- and e-mail way to end the contract here. This will not eradicate the €50 that they say you owe, but you can sort that out separately. That email address might also respond to inquiries about the validity of the charge. At any rate, they also give a link to online dispute resolution per Art. 14, para 1 of the EU Online Dispute Resolution Regulations. GDPR does not give one the right to be deleted so as to avoid an existing liability.
If you have an agreement with a company that specifies &quot;you agree to give me something of value, in case I give you something of value&quot;, you have a contract. In order for there to be a contract, there has to be actual acceptance of the offer. You can put out on a web page some contract stating those terms, and if you get positive acceptance of the contract (hence the standard click-through technology), then as long as you have done the thing promised, you can bill them for doing the thing promised. It's not clear what thing of value you are offering on the web page, since it's not &quot;doing actual work&quot;. Them sending you an email isn't you doing something. One thing you could do is block all incoming emails, and for money you agree to unblock emails from registered subscribers. Just announcing that you will bill anyone for emailing you does not create a contract, because the emailer need not have even seen your announcement. This is why e-contracts need a click-through button. It's legal to request money, but there is no legal obligation for them to comply. That will be $10, please.
the first two highlighted parts seem to contradict each other. No, in this case they do not. The first highlighted portion refers to works or items produced "for or under the direction of the Company", whereas the second highlight refers to your creations that satisfy conditions (a) and (b). Where contradictions actually exist, the doctrine of contra proferentem entitles you (the non-draftsman of the contract) to adopt the portion or reasonable interpretation that favors your legal position. Also wondering how valid those statements actually are They are valid and become enforceable as soon as you sign the contract or your subsequent conduct reflects your acceptance thereof. it's a matter of privacy. So the question is what I can do or what the reality is of the situation The reality is that you are asked to sign a contract that is abusive and ridiculous. One vulnerability from describing your inventions (presumably in Appendix A) is that the employer gets "irrevocable, worldwide, etc" rights on them as soon as you "use or disclose any [items listed in Appendix A] when acting within the scope of [your] employment". This means that if instead of reinventing the wheel you share or apply any portion of your prior creations so as to enhance your productivity, you knowingly and irreversibly grant to the employer perpetual rights to those items. Legal disputes regarding APIs can become extremely intricate. And, since judges usually have no decent background on IT, even those few judges with integrity are unlikely to grasp the key subtleties that would lead to a correct ruling. "not useful with or related to any Company Interest" is very vague. The company could be interested in literally anything these days. Clauses which are too vague or excessively wide-encompassing are supposedly stricken as unconscionable, unenforceable, etc. However, I personally would foreclose upfront the risk of judicial hassle and decline the abusive contract. Legal issues aside, keep in mind that you are offering your expertise (in terms of supply &amp; demand, you are on the supply side). This fact has a less derogatory connotation than "asking for a job". Accordingly, the relation between the parties should be more leveled.
The difficulty is that tips are, by statute, considered a form of wages rather than a form of self-employment income for the tipped employee for income tax purposes (in contrast, employers don't have to keep track of tips for minimum wage purposes, tipped employees just have an extremely low minimum wage+). (If it was self-employment income, withholding and paying self-employment tax which is paid in lieu of FICA taxes, would be solely the employee's problem and none of the employer's business.) A comment notes, probably correctly, that: If wages plus tips do not add up to the full regular (non-tipped) minimum wage, the employer must pay the difference. This is not well-enforced, however. So, employers have a duty to report to the IRS and withhold taxes from their best estimate of combined wages and tips in a manner authorized by IRS regulations. If they don't, the employers face stiff penalties from the IRS for failing to withhold taxes. There are tax regulations and other forms of official guidance governing when it is permissible to infer tips on cash payments in this fashion. It isn't truly &quot;wage theft&quot;. The employee still gets whatever the actual tip is, and the employer still doesn't get the tip itself. Instead, what the employer does is withhold taxes for the benefit of the employee (and with respect to FICA an equal share of employer obligations withholding) based upon estimated wages and tips combined. The income tax withholding is annually reconciled (in theory anyway) against actual taxes owed on the annual tax return. If you maintain good records, you might get audited, but you'd probably win. If you maintain sloppy records or don't keep track at all, you'd probably lose in an audit. To reconcile the error in income tax reporting in federal tax law, the waiter files a 1040 with the W-2 from the employer. The waiter reports the amount withheld in one box. The waiter reports the correct amount of wages and salary and tips rather than the incorrect amount in the wage and salary box. The waiter files a supplement to the tax return page explaining the that W-2 is inaccurate. The waiter calculates tax and shows entitlement to a refund, and the IRS either writes a check or audits after which the IRS or if there is no agreement the tax court decides who is right. Cash tips should be logged daily by the waiter and regularly deposited. (I've done this before personally, with success in the audit process, in cases of erroneous 1099s for my personal taxes.) Reconciling errors in FICA withholdings is rather more difficult, but erroneous overwithholding still provides a benefit to the employee, and the employee's survivors, in the long run in that case. This is done in the form of larger Social Security benefit checks that are based on the inflated wage and tip estimate and the actual FICA taxes paid. If the employee actually receives more cash tips than reported by the employer and doesn't correctly increase the amount in a tax return, the tipped employee is actually engaged in petty tax evasion (and, in practice, excess cash tips are rarely reported). The circumstances under which a fixed percentage may be properly set and what it should be are too technical for an answer here. Systemically, the problem with the applicable regulations is that the inferred tip percentage is benchmarked against the tips paid on credit card payments, per IRS guidance and permission, but actually, customers tip at lower percentages of the bill when paying in cash than when paying via credit card. This is a flaw in the law, but it doesn't represent impropriety on the part of the employer.