On the flip side we don't have safety net of unemployment benefit that the employed people have. Either way why not increase our AHV contribution if that bothers them instead of flat out refusing people to become self employed?

If you are working three days a week for only one client then that is similar to a full time worker who works 60% only.

And this is my worry. Before having my son I worked 3 days a week in-house and worked on other projects in the other 2 days and spare time. Now I have zero time on my days off to work on other clients unless I put my son in krippe 5 days a week so for now (since going back in June) I have just been sticking to the one client - I hope to add more work again in the future

I suppose i should sit tight until it someone picks up on my situation and then deal with it then

So I have to spend money to buy then and once I have them they will once again drain money from me? No thanks as it's a lose lose situation

Yes just carry on as normal. I just tell SVA how much I earn and put the same amount on our joint tax return. As long as they don't get on my case and want more detail we should be ok. Hopefully next year would be better.

Btw in your case why don't you just work 60% full time as a normal employee? Krippe 5 times a week would be expensive from what I hear. You might end up losing money?

While this may be a federal law, it will be implemented differently (if at all!) in different cantons.

I'm not prepared to put my son in krippe 5 days a week I was just illustrating that to do my 3 days freelance in house and work the other days at home (to have extra clients) I would have to put him in krippe

I haven't been offered a permanent contract - when i got the job before I was pregnant I was freelancing based from home and to supplement that income i took on the in-house roll - they were looking for a temporary freelancer and i didn't want to be employed (I still dont) because in time I would like to build my clients back up again

It most places the acid test of self employment is if you choose when you do the work, like a plumber or if your employer tells you the time to show up you are an employee.

If you have ever waited in for a plumber who did not turn up, you will understand the difference!

From another forum in the US


> Yes, the old ITVA (a trade group here in the US in the 90s) was able
to get the IRS to rule that DPs
> and directors here could be classified as Independent Contractors for
the purposes of federal taxes.
The requirements for being considered an
independent contractor working a a DP in the eyes the IRS are quite
specific and are available on their website, and really only concern taxes,
or rather who pays the taxes.


Actually everyone on the set is an employee, unless you can prove
otherwise. You should check with an accountant and/or
tax attorney, but unless you are in an elevated tax bracket, it probably
is not worth the expense of establishing yourself
as an independent contractor.

Nearly all state Labor Boards and/or Commissions, etc. have their own
criteria for determining whether or
not someone is an employee. Even though a producer may try to claim
that you are a contractor, or even have an
independent contractor agreement with you, it will not cut much ice with
a state labor board.

State boards usually -- and correctly -- see independent contractor
status as a means for producers to avoid paying
payroll and unemployment taxes, etc.

If they tell you when to show up, whether they pay you by the hour or
by the day, you are, from the standpoint of the Cal labor board.... an
employee.

I don't understand this thread & what CG is trying to say. What ARE the new changes?

The fact is that since I set foot in Switzerland more than 10 years ago it has been the case that working as self employed with only one client was not allowed. This is because they consider you a de facto employee and that the hiring company is trying to avoid paying the necessary contributions, taxes, their part of your pension fund, sick insurance, vacation, etc. If you work for a company you get those things. If you "freelance" you don't. The officials see it as companies trying to screw the employee by making them "self employed".

In fact, if the authorities deemed you were really a de facto employee they would go after the company for paying those unpaid contributions/expenses.

Now, I really don't think anyone should panic UNLESS they are working full time 9-5 for one company through out your "self employed" career. This is why we read about lots of our fellow EF members who are, (ehem), "consultants" but need to pass their invoices through a payroll company.

I bet that what is happening now is not changes but more strict enforcement. Personally, from what I read I don't think Nicker or NotVIP2U really have to worry. Neither of you is really working as a de facto employee. You are not working at the offices at 100%.

__________________

People who are really self employed & take the risk of making a trading loss have nothing to fear.
Contractors who are just temporary employees who wish to pay less tax, will have a problem.

When you say 'throughout your self employed career' do you mean that if someone does this for a year or two full time with one company, its ok ?

so how does one operate if one gets a client with a 1 year project or so and has to full time in ZH ?

Well, that was probably not a good phase.

If you are working full time at the client office, 40+ hours a week day in and day out working at a desk they provide, using their office equipment for months and months, even a year at a time, then yes, you can easily be deemed a de facto employee. Because really, you are just acting just like an employee without the benefits to you & costs to them. There are even companies who will not contract with one man shops because of exactly this.

This is why most people who are working here as "consultants" or on a "project basis" or "temporary/ interim" usually go though an intermediary "consulting" company.

ETA: here is the list of criteria that determine whether you are an "independent" or an "employee".

Fr, De, It. No english translation. But I'm sure google can help with that:
http://www.seco.admin.ch/keine-schwa...sprungmarke1_0

Also if you look on the left side menu you will see what you need to do to be an independent.

__________________

I see your point but that means the intermediate company does the payroll etc and I have heard they charge their own fees.

Some companies even want to see a C permit before they deal with a 1 man shop.

Of course they charge fees. They have to make the contributions that the "client" is not paying.

Being on C permit or even Swiss does not mean you don't have the burden to prove you are not a de facto employee.

So if one has multiple clients, then how does the contributions thing work ? Who pays then ?

Yes the permit does not take away the burden but it does make it easier as the regular B does not permit self employment.

B permits do allow for self employment.

You pay the contributions. But you are not getting any pension fund contributions by paid by the employer.

I really think you are missing the point though. The authorities do not want companies employing de facto employees as "self employed" because they feel companies are doing this to try to avoid paying the contributions such as pension fund contributions, holiday pay, severance pay, accident insurance, etc.

How's that work the as I'm self-employed and I have a B permit?

EDIT: Sorry mini I mis-read it.

you need some new glasses goose

That's what I get for posting under the influence... I'm off to start a thread for the myopic

Stop drinking or share. Up to you.

I wish I was drinking, it stuff for man flu... why is there no runny nose smiley