Any good accountants in Aberdeen area ?

[mballantyne83]

Does anyone know of any good accountants in the Aberdeen area that could help me with my Ltd company ?

Cheers

Michael

 

[togetherwegain]

Hi Michael,
How big is your company in turnover and what range of products do you have. We can tell you of a suitable accountant in your area, but some only handle limited businesses up to £1million turnover per year. regards twg

 

[elaine@cheapaccounting]

Does anyone know of any good accountants in the Aberdeen area that could help me with my Ltd company ?

Cheers

Michael

do they have to be local or will you work with a remote accountant?

 

[mballantyne83]

hey guys thanks for the response.

i am an offshore worker and everything i make is a profit cause i use the clients tools, clothes, and they pay for flights and accommodation etc. I make roughly 72,000 GBP per year and have got the ball rolling as far as setting up my ltd company name and registering for VAT, but other than that i am pretty clueless as to where to go next so i thought the next step would be to get an accountant in place...

He/she doesn't have to be local but as long as there rates are good and they are advising me in the right direction then i shouldn't see any problem going to someone out of town...

Michael

 

[MrPAYE]

You would be best advised to go with someone who has experience of the oil and gas sector as there are specific issues to consider, there certainly are from the PAYE side of things.

I would also suggest that you take specific advice in relation to IR35, again from someone with specific sector experience, as employment status has been one of the key issues in the Aberdeen sector for many years.

Let me know if you need any input on the PAYE/IR35 side.

 

[RedEvo]

Anderson Anderson and Brown are very good as are Johnstone Carmichael. Both have offices in Aberdeen and I know people at both organisations.

d

 

[MrPAYE]

Anderson Anderson and Brown are very good as are Johnstone Carmichael. Both have offices in Aberdeen and I know people at both organisations.

d

Both A2B and JM are the main players behind the Big 4 in Aberdeen, and very often take business away from the Big 4. I doubt they would be very good value for money for a one-man Ltd company.

 

[RedEvo]

Both A2B and JM are the main players behind the Big 4 in Aberdeen, and very often take business away from the Big 4. I doubt they would be very good value for money for a one-man Ltd company.

They are big players but they take the view that today's small company is tomorrow's big co. No harm in chatting to them.

d

 

[MrPAYE]

They are big players but they take the view that today's small company is tomorrow's big co. No harm in chatting to them.

d

Agreed no harm in having the conversation, but I guess the OP needs to manage his expectations about possible fee levels.

When I was in the Big 4 covering Aberdeen, I couldn't do any advisory work for less than £2k given my obscene charge-out rate so I'm sure that both of these firms will also have a minimum level of fees especially for an individually owned company that probably doesn't have mass growth planned.

 

[mballantyne83]

Guys,

I'll be honest here, Im not looking to build a multimillion pound company out of this, im just trying to find a easier way to be able to hold on to more of my cash without it being swallowed up in tax.

Im not looking to employ as i am a one man team that works through an agency that finds me work, but someone had told me that Ltd was the way to go if i was over the threshold cause i could then be charging VAT to the client and claiming back things that i need laptop, office office supplies, etc. Most of the main things like accommodation and travel is covered by the agency but courses like health and safety, offshore survival, medicals, and other ones i need (to make the business) cost in the thousands of pounds which is something i was hoping i could claim back. Am i right here or am i way of on this ?

The more and more i talk to people on here the more confusing it all gets for me and im wondering if im really going to benefit from going Ltd.

Im still pretty young and new to this stuff so if you have any possible feedback you could give me then it would be much appreciated. Any feed back is positive feed back ...

Kind Regards,

Michael

 

[MrPAYE]

Guys,

I'll be honest here, Im not looking to build a multimillion pound company out of this, im just trying to find a easier way to be able to hold on to more of my cash without it being swallowed up in tax.

Im not looking to employ as i am a one man team that works through an agency that finds me work, but someone had told me that Ltd was the way to go if i was over the threshold cause i could then be charging VAT to the client and claiming back things that i need laptop, office office supplies, etc. Most of the main things like accommodation and travel is covered by the agency but courses like health and safety, offshore survival, medicals, and other ones i need (to make the business) cost in the thousands of pounds which is something i was hoping i could claim back. Am i right here or am i way of on this ?

The more and more i talk to people on here the more confusing it all gets for me and im wondering if im really going to benefit from going Ltd.

Im still pretty young and new to this stuff so if you have any possible feedback you could give me then it would be much appreciated. Any feed back is positive feed back ...

Kind Regards,

Michael

You have 2 key issues to consider:

1) Would it be better for me financially (i.e. tax) and/or from a legal point of view (in terms of liability etc) operating as M Ballantyne sole trader or M Ballantyne Ltd.
2) If operating as M Ballantyne Ltd am I caught by IR35 or any other legislation, e.g. Managed Service Companies, that would trigger a PAYE/NI liability for M Ballantyne Ltd.

There is a sticky on here about issue 1, and most accountants should be able to advise you the best course of action.

However, I think you need to tackle issue 2 first as the outcome could be the most important factor in deciding your 'fate' as Ltd company status may be a complete waste of time if you are caught by some of the PAYE legislation I have mentioned.

To save yourself paying someone to start from scratch, I suggest you google "IR35" or do a search on here to familiarise yourself exactly what this is about and whether it may apply to your situation. Then it would probably make sense to seek advice on that particular aspect at that point before considering issue 1.

Some accountants may be able to advise on IR35, some may not, and there are others like myself who specialise in this area (including oil and gas sector) but not on general accountancy so you may need different input unless you go with one of the bigger firms mentioned (who won't come cheap).

As a starter for 10 on the IR35 side, the questions you should be asking yourself to begin with (to start the thinking about why should not be an employee for tax purposes):

1. Am I working regularly for one of the oil companies ?
2. What makes me different from their regular employees ?
3. Am I 'allowed' to work for more than one company at a time ?
4. Am I covered by their insurance or my own when offshore ?
5. What does my contract with the agency say and what is their specific role ?

In cases I have had previously, flights, H&S training, place of work (rig), insurance have all been sticking points. But, just to say, that if you get as far as thinking IR35 may be a problem for you, take comfort that HMRC can be defeated with these cases in the oil and gas sector.

 

[MrPAYE]

Just a final point, ask yourself who is advising you to go ltd co status and why ?

IR35 is all about pushing the PAYE problem down the chain so that it is the small guy at the bottom, i.e. you, that has to pay if IR35 comes into play.

What I'm saying is that Ltd co status may suit the agency or other party but not necessarily you.

 

[Strontium Dog]

If I were you I would spend about 200 quid joining the Professional Contractors Group (google them), then spend a few hours familiarising yourself with their site. It would pay to use an accountant who understands the IR35 regulations (PCG reccomends some).

 

[David Griffiths]

Just a final point, ask yourself who is advising you to go ltd co status and why ?

IR35 is all about pushing the PAYE problem down the chain so that it is the small guy at the bottom, i.e. you, that has to pay if IR35 comes into play.

What I'm saying is that Ltd co status may suit the agency or other party but not necessarily you.

It's usually a non-negotiable condition of contracting. Most contracting is though agencies and they will only deal with limited companies. As you say it's all about risk aversion

 

[MrPAYE]

If I were you I would spend about 200 quid joining the Professional Contractors Group (google them), then spend a few hours familiarising yourself with their site. It would pay to use an accountant who understands the IR35 regulations (PCG reccomends some).

Just be careful that you go with someone with experience of the oil and gas sector, not a firm that specialises in IT contractors

 

[mballantyne83]

You have 2 key issues to consider:

1) Would it be better for me financially (i.e. tax) and/or from a legal point of view (in terms of liability etc) operating as M Ballantyne sole trader or M Ballantyne Ltd.
2) If operating as M Ballantyne Ltd am I caught by IR35 or any other legislation, e.g. Managed Service Companies, that would trigger a PAYE/NI liability for M Ballantyne Ltd. The more i read about IR35 the more i am realizing that i do not fall under this...

There is a sticky on here about issue 1, and most accountants should be able to advise you the best course of action.

However, I think you need to tackle issue 2 first as the outcome could be the most important factor in deciding your 'fate' as Ltd company status may be a complete waste of time if you are caught by some of the PAYE legislation I have mentioned.

To save yourself paying someone to start from scratch, I suggest you google "IR35" or do a search on here to familiarise yourself exactly what this is about and whether it may apply to your situation. Then it would probably make sense to seek advice on that particular aspect at that point before considering issue 1.

Some accountants may be able to advise on IR35, some may not, and there are others like myself who specialise in this area (including oil and gas sector) but not on general accountancy so you may need different input unless you go with one of the bigger firms mentioned (who won't come cheap).

As a starter for 10 on the IR35 side, the questions you should be asking yourself to begin with (to start the thinking about why should not be an employee for tax purposes):

1. Am I working regularly for one of the oil companies ? Yes
2. What makes me different from their regular employees ?
3. Am I 'allowed' to work for more than one company at a time ? Yes
4. Am I covered by their insurance or my own when offshore ? My own
5. What does my contract with the agency say and what is their specific role ? There specific role is to find me the work and they charge me a fee. i can leave any job i like when i like and i can take whatever work that i am please to take on.

In cases I have had previously, flights, H&S training, place of work (rig), insurance have all been sticking points. But, just to say, that if you get as far as thinking IR35 may be a problem for you, take comfort that HMRC can be defeated with these cases in the oil and gas sector.

If i am not being caught out by IR35 then that means that it is going to be worth my time right ? Sorry but im trying to get my head around all of this as best i can.

So let me get this right, If i dont fall under IR35 then my tax is less ?

 

[MrPAYE]

If i am not being caught out by IR35 then that means that it is going to be worth my time right ? Sorry but im trying to get my head around all of this as best i can.

So let me get this right, If i dont fall under IR35 then my tax is less ?

If you don't fall within IR35, then you need to look at the sticky within this section Sole Trade v Limited company http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=60813 and also speak to an accountant who can advise you what is the best structure for you tax and protection wise.

All I'll say before wishing you luck is, are you absolutely positive you don't fall within IR35 ? It was interesting that you did not say anthing around the question what makes you different from the regular employees ? This is a fundamental part of looking at IR35, especially where you are working under the same or similar conditions as PAYE employees, irrespective of what type of work you are doing. This, coupled with the fact that you do regular work for 2 main companies would have my alarm bells ringing if I were an HMRC employment status inspector.

Anyways, best of luck

Cheers

MrP

 

[QuickHomeBuyers]

What work do you do. Sound pretty interesting.

 

[mballantyne83]

What work do you do. Sound pretty interesting.

I am an Offshore Marine Tech...

 

[mballantyne83]

MrPAYE: My rates are the only thing that is different as i undercut the opposition in my daily working rate. A tech is a tech, there is no difference between what i do and someone else that works with another agency will do.This is a fundamental part of looking at IR35, especially where you are working under the same or similar conditions as PAYE employees, irrespective of what type of work you are doing. This, coupled with the fact that you do regular work for 2 main companies ( I only work on contracts that i chose, at the moment i am on a marine vessel, but i still look for work elsewhere and can leave this at any point to go somewhere else. i could even employ someone else to do my job if i decided to take on more work but then i would need to get all sorts of insurance and its not something that i want to get into just yet) would have my alarm bells ringing if I were an HMRC employment status inspector.

 

[Jenni384]

i still look for work elsewhere and can leave this at any point to go somewhere else.i could even employ someone else to do my job if i decided to take on more work

That's a very good indicator that you're not caught by IR35, and it's one of the important ones.

 

[MrPAYE]

That's a very good indicator that you're not caught by IR35, and it's one of the important ones.

Agreed, but that's assuming of course that the OP actually does that in practice.

Many contractors, and their written contracts, say words to this effect but the reality is so often very different with many never having sent a substitute. This is the reason why HMRC, and the courts, usually ignore the point unless there is hard evidence to prove it is not just a sham or "IR35 friendly" clause in the contract.

 

[David Griffiths]

Agreed, but that's assuming of course that the OP actually does that in practice.

Many contractors, and their written contracts, say words to this effect but the reality is so often very different with many never having sent a substitute. This is the reason why HMRC, and the courts, usually ignore the point unless there is hard evidence to prove it is not just a sham or "IR35 friendly" clause in the contract.

The fact that a substitute has never been sent is not going to cause an issue.

What causes problems is if the clause is basically a sham and the employer would not accept a substitute

Can you point to any case where the court has thrown out a claim for self employed status just because a substitute has never been sent? I think not, but I am always willing to learn.

 

[Jenni384]

The fact that a substitute has never been sent is not going to cause an issue.

What causes problems is if the clause is basically a sham and the employer would not accept a substitute

Thanks David, this is my understanding also.

As long as the contract acutally backs up the real situation, and isn't just written in order to get round the IR35 issue, it is fine.

 

[Zeno]

My understanding of the situation is that they would have to show that the clauses were realistic - there was someone qualfied, acceptable & available to subsitute. Just because this had never actually happened means little on it's own but if it is shown that no such person (or persons) really exists it would.

 

[MrPAYE]

The fact that a substitute has never been sent is not going to cause an issue.

What causes problems is if the clause is basically a sham and the employer would not accept a substitute

Can you point to any case where the court has thrown out a claim for self employed status just because a substitute has never been sent? I think not, but I am always willing to learn.

Happy to quote case law to my hearts content on any employment tax related issue, including this one, but certainly not in my free (unpaid) time, that's for sure

There is a very fine line between a genuine right to substitution and a sham and it is the debate of such a distinction that generally brings into question whether someone has actually used a substitute worker. I'm not saying that never sending a subsitute means there is no right to do so (as HMRC has lost a couple of high profile cases on this very point), but what I am saying is that cases (both real-life and also through the courts) that seek to determine whether the clause is a sham or not invariably rely to a certain extent what has happened in practice in relation to personal service and substitution.

A contractor simply saying he can send someone else instead doesn't quite cut it.

 

[Jenni384]

My understanding of the situation is that they would have to show that the clauses were realistic - there was someone qualfied, acceptable & available to subsitute. Just because this had never actually happened means little on it's own but if it is shown that no such person (or persons) really exists it would.

I usually defer to your greater wisdom Zeno but I don't know on this one. :redface: I don't think it's reasonable to assume that every eventuality in a contract is covered to make all these clauses valid. As long as the 'employer' is happy that Joe can send someone else in, whether that person's identity is known or not before the situation crops up, I think is the crux of the issue.

Let's say my admin lady goes off sick for 5 months and I need to get a temp in to replace her - I'm not going to have one lined up on the offchance that she is going to be off work. No, I will only source a replacement as and when I need one. Not the best example I know but hopefully the principle is similar enough to demonstrate my point.

 

[MrPAYE]

My understanding of the situation is that they would have to show that the clauses were realistic - there was someone qualfied, acceptable & available to subsitute. Just because this had never actually happened means little on it's own but if it is shown that no such person (or persons) really exists it would.

The terms under which a substitute is used is also important.

One case I know extremely well (but will refrain from naming given the principle of my earlier post ) involved a few substitutes being used but the court ruled that this did not overturn the overall requirement for personal service by the named worker. The way in which the subs were provided was the major factor in this decision.

The moral of this case is that there is much more involved in deciding whether substitution is a helpful or deciding factor in employment status than some would have you believe.

 

[DavidRyves]

I can highly recommend my accountant - Fiona Fraser - she's based in Perth, so not a million miles away - she is not only very good at maximising any possible tax breaks (and has saved me fortune over the years) but seriously undercharges

 

[mballantyne83]

I am not exactly trying to act as a recruitment agency at the same time though so if i was off sick and had to be off for a month then i would just have to find someone through posting an add as i dont know anyone who would want to work for me at the moment. I could find someone if push came to shove but its not in my agenda to not be covering my work by myself.

What would happen if i ended up losing a contract and only made 40K that year ? How would this work with VAT not being over the threshold ?