Return of a deposit

CalmNudes said

Is there anything new to add - or will this thread keep returning from the dead periodically for us to rehash what's been said before? 

Not for the first time, either!

ThePictureCompany said

FiL said

ThePictureCompany said

FiL I think the suggestion is that if the model ran their modelling as a business then some would be happier to pay up front. But if it’s all under the tax radar then why should they help. As for cash limits, it’s perfectly possible to pay massive amounts of cash, it’s just a matter of which bank and whatever the fees might amount to. Certainly not hard enough to get behind on bills.

Nonsense.

Paying cash into a bank/post office does not keep it 'under the tax radar'. Cash is the photographer's preference, not the model's, so who is the unprofessional/deceitful party?

The rest of your comments about cash are, quite frankly, laughable. Look up money laundering and the responsibilities placed on banks and other organisations/professions including my own.

Edited by FiL

I didnt say cash kept it under the radar, not at all.  I said that the prevous post was more willing to pay a deposit before a shoot if they felt the model was running a proper business.  As for paying money in, if you have a long term occurrence of paying in cash the banks are able to work with you.

Oh dear.

Some banks MAY be willing to support certain long-standing customers with established and legitimate businesses which traditionally operate on a cash basis. However, regular risk assessments are required to evaluate whether the amount of cash being banked is reasonable for the business being conducted. And the bank bears the costs and risks associated with those assessments from a compliance perspective - a situation which most banks prefer to avoid if they can. Most [all?] banks now filter businesses which operate in cash sectors and refuse new accounts. But let's explore your hypothesis for a moment - how do you suppose that a model will be able to prove to a bank's satisfaction that the verifiable source of the cash was photographers paying for modelling services, as opposed to potentially the proceeds from something illegal (eg dealing in drugs, human trafficking)? How many of the hundreds of photographers she's worked with do you suppose might be willing to put pen to paper and confirm how much they paid and for what, bearing in mind that the reason payment was made in cash was to avoid an audit trial. I've been there and know the answer by the way.

Let me give you some real-life first-hand examples.

A model who had accumulated £130k in cash, which she literally kept in a suitcase under her bed. The cash had accumulated over a relatively short period of time and being popular/busy she'd never got round to registering her business with HMRC. She'd set her heart on buying a flat, thinking that the cash could be used to finance it. However, she quickly discovered that neither the vendor's solicitor nor her bank would accept the cash, resulting in tears and disappointment. A mutual friend introduced her, thinking I may be able to help. Long story short, a self-declaration was made to HMRC resulting in tax and interest to pay of just over £20k. The model was both happy and surprised with that outcome. HMRC did not impose a penalty due to the self-declaration (which had to be dealt with swiftly since both the solicitor and the bank had an obligation to report potentially untaxed income). However, despite providing the bank with copies of communications with HMRC and assessments detailing that the income had been declared, the bank still wouldn't accept the cash. In the end, HM Treasury compelled the bank to accept the cash - so that the tax and interest could be paid! Model got her flat.

And a Bulgarian gentleman fresh off the ferry from France who called into my office late on a Friday afternoon, asking if I'd put a carrier bag containing 30k in Euro notes in my safe for safe-keeping over the weekend. He'd been to the bank next door (where he had an account) and had tried to pay the cash in, but it had been refused due to MLR. I couldn't accept it either, for the same reason. My abiding memory is watching him amble aimlessly towards the park at the end of the road, carrier bag in hand, and wondering whether he'd still be in possession of it in the morning.

I could go on.

Y

FiL said

ThePictureCompany said

FiL said

ThePictureCompany said

FiL I think the suggestion is that if the model ran their modelling as a business then some would be happier to pay up front. But if it’s all under the tax radar then why should they help. As for cash limits, it’s perfectly possible to pay massive amounts of cash, it’s just a matter of which bank and whatever the fees might amount to. Certainly not hard enough to get behind on bills.

Nonsense.

Paying cash into a bank/post office does not keep it 'under the tax radar'. Cash is the photographer's preference, not the model's, so who is the unprofessional/deceitful party?

The rest of your comments about cash are, quite frankly, laughable. Look up money laundering and the responsibilities placed on banks and other organisations/professions including my own.

Edited by FiL

I didnt say cash kept it under the radar, not at all.  I said that the prevous post was more willing to pay a deposit before a shoot if they felt the model was running a proper business.  As for paying money in, if you have a long term occurrence of paying in cash the banks are able to work with you.

Oh dear.

Some banks MAY be willing to support certain long-standing customers with established and legitimate businesses which traditionally operate on a cash basis. However, regular risk assessments are required to evaluate whether the amount of cash being banked is reasonable for the business being conducted. And the bank bears the costs and risks associated with those assessments from a compliance perspective - a situation which most banks prefer to avoid if they can. Most [all?] banks now filter businesses which operate in cash sectors and refuse new accounts. But let's explore your hypothesis for a moment - how do you suppose that a model will be able to prove to a bank's satisfaction that the verifiable source of the cash was photographers paying for modelling services, as opposed to potentially the proceeds from something illegal (eg dealing in drugs, human trafficking)? How many of the hundreds of photographers she's worked with do you suppose might be willing to put pen to paper and confirm how much they paid and for what, bearing in mind that the reason payment was made in cash was to avoid an audit trial. I've been there and know the answer by the way.

Let me give you some real-life first-hand examples.

A model who had accumulated £130k in cash, which she literally kept in a suitcase under her bed. The cash had accumulated over a relatively short period of time and being popular/busy she'd never got round to registering her business with HMRC. She'd set her heart on buying a flat, thinking that the cash could be used to finance it. However, she quickly discovered that neither the vendor's solicitor nor her bank would accept the cash, resulting in tears and disappointment. A mutual friend introduced her, thinking I may be able to help. Long story short, a self-declaration was made to HMRC resulting in tax and interest to pay of just over £20k. The model was both happy and surprised with that outcome. HMRC did not impose a penalty due to the self-declaration (which had to be dealt with swiftly since both the solicitor and the bank had an obligation to report potentially untaxed income). However, despite providing the bank with copies of communications with HMRC and assessments detailing that the income had been declared, the bank still wouldn't accept the cash. In the end, HM Treasury compelled the bank to accept the cash - so that the tax and interest could be paid! Model got her flat.

And a Bulgarian gentleman fresh off the ferry from France who called into my office late on a Friday afternoon, asking if I'd put a carrier bag containing 30k in Euro notes in my safe for safe-keeping over the weekend. He'd been to the bank next door (where he had an account) and had tried to pay the cash in, but it had been refused due to MLR. I couldn't accept it either, for the same reason. My abiding memory is watching him amble aimlessly towards the park at the end of the road, carrier bag in hand, and wondering whether he'd still be in possession of it in the morning.

I could go on.

You dont need to i'm bored to death of your few examples already.  Thank the Lord a few examples can prove how the whole world operates and as someone who has been self employed for 30yrs, your two examples over ride and experience I might have had with banking.

Thanks very much.

industry I work in, not banking though it takes money laundering very seriously to the point that even the lowest grades are given some degree of training on it.

Bundles of loose cash brings action almost immediately from the customer facing staff, Managers get involved almost straight away.

Not averse to loose cash so long as you have a ready explanation for it's origin and preferably a paper trail for it too.

All eyes on me photography naming and shaming not allowed.

Lenswonder said

All eyes on me photography naming and shaming not allowed.

why is this not allowed people should have  the right to know and if  pp does not do any think to stop it happening 

that was for the first shoot

All eyes on me photography it's just not and you will lose posting privileges if you continue depending on what admin choose so not wise. Also as Huw pointed out you left a positive reference for her.

Lenswonder said

All eyes on me photography it's just not and you will lose posting privileges if you continue depending on what admin choose so not wise. Also as Huw pointed out you left a positive reference for her.

that was for first shoot so should leave one for the cancelled shoot 

All eyes on me photography well you could have left a reference rather than name and shame. References does give you at least 3 options.

All eyes on me photography said

Lenswonder said

All eyes on me photography naming and shaming not allowed.

why is this not allowed people should have  the right to know and if  pp does not do any think to stop it happening 

Naming and shaming on forums has been banned pretty much since PP started - basically it keeps down the number of shit fights admin need to sort out. If you something bad happens, leave a negative reference, so others can avoid the problem party, if it's really bad make a report to admin. If you feel the need to name and shame, you'll need to do it on another site - do it here and you'll find yourself only using other sites.  If you don't like the way PP handles stuff, the option to vote with your feet is always open. 

Note also that PP doesn't condone the use of deposits for exactly the reasons apparent in the rest of this thread. If you pay a deposit you accept the risk, and if you get stung, on your head be it.  Harsh perhaps, but those are the rules.