Freelancing

[Guest lightnix]

Like Piers, I also operate through a limited company - all my clients are invoiced by the company, which then pays me a monthly wage, pays me contributions towards motoriing costs, pays for any business-related expenditure, etc. It's the safest way to do it these days, in terms of keeping the taxman off your back - for anyone who's currently operating as self-employed it's well worth looking into.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm... careful ;) I wouldn't go so far as to say "anyone". Certainly, if you're an LD or maybe an operator with their own desk it's worth looking into, but possibly best avoided if you are "just" a technician.

 

As discussed many times before...

 

Self-employment as a sole trader is covered by the Inland Revenue's IR56 regulations, which lay down the criteria defining a self-employed person as opposed to a temporary employee (taxable under PAYE). If the Revenue decide that these criteria have not been satisfied, then the client who has engaged the services of the worker will have to pay Income Tax, NI and Employer's NI on the money paid to the sole trader (i.e. "freelancer"). Such money will be regarded by the Revenue as the nett pay.

 

If you become a one-person Ltd. Co. then your self-employment is covered by the IR35 regulations. These contain broadly the same criteria as IR56, BUT should the criteria not be met, then the outstanding tax liability will be borne by the freelancer and not the client :o

 

What basically happens is that the Rvenue will ask, "If it wasn't for the presence of the Fred Bloggs Ltd., could Fred Bloggs Esq. have been regarded as an employee on that job". If the answer is "yes", the Fred Bloggs Ltd. will be allowed 5% of the total fee tax free, to cover expenses. The rest will be taxed / NI'd at PAYE rates and Fred Bloggs Ltd. will have to pay Employers NI on top.

 

Also, it is possible to be regarded as self-employed (sole trader or Ltd. Co.) on one job, but not the next, even if the jobs are for the same client.

 

Generally speaking, it's easier for an LD / operator / HoD type of crew member to meet the criteria than someone who is just there as a "worker" who is being told what to do and when, whose actions are more dictated by the needs of the production and who has less opportunity of deciding how and when the work will be done.

 

Those working as techs under Ltd. Co. status in rock touring could be particularly vulnerable to IR35 and even though I have a Ltd. Co. (Wavicle), the small amount of remaining work I do as a freelancer is invoiced for by me, personally, as a self-employed sole trader. Believe me, the recent move by hire and prod co's to try to push freelancers into becoming Ltd. Co's was not done for the benefit of the crew, despite what they may try to tell you :D If you are thinking of setting yourself up as a one-person Ltd. Co., it is absolutely vital that you seek the services of an accountant.

 

BTW, my accountant costs me around £400 per year and is worth every penny.

[stormster]

As a managing director of a lighting company, I would say that we try to only employ freelancers who are a limited company in their own rights, this is my only way of protecting myself and my company from others tx liabilities an NI contributions. As it is not (yet) the case in law for one company to be liable for anothers tax.

 

In the long run it means you could be slightly better off though it does involve slightly more paperwork. Nearly all of my sub contractors now operate this way and not only does it keep it clean for me but they have all said it assists them in financial and image ways.

 

John Simpson at White Light says it very well by saying the Tax Office are trying to use us as tax collectors.

[Guest lightnix]

As a managing director of a lighting company, I would say that we try to only employ freelancers who are a limited company in their own rights,...

Ah... that magic word, "EMPLOY". It just gives the whole game away, doesn't it? Surely, if you are "employing" freelancers (as you have clearly stated), rather than engaging their services as genuinely self-employed subcontractors, then shouldn't you be taxing them under PAYE and according them the rights of employees?

 

...this is my only way of protecting myself and my company from others tx liabilities an NI contributions.

No it isn't. The current state of play, according to my (very experienced) accountant, is that the strongest indicator of genuine self-employment, is the guaranteed right of substitution of labour (in writing, in the freelancers terms and conditions of service / supply). There are legal precedents to back this up and I will contact my accountant (at my own expense, please note) to confirm this, if you wish.

 

But then again, should any freelancer exercise that right, then they will have to make sure that anybody whose services they engage as their substitute will also has said right of substitution, if they want to avoid tax liabilities, which in turn means that the subsitute's substitute also has said right... etc., ad infinitum, ad ridiculum...

 

As it is not (yet) the case in law for one company to be liable for anothers tax.

True, but the ultimate arbiter of where the tax liability lies for one person Ltd. Co's, is the Inland Revenue and the IR35 regulations. Should any Ltd. Co. freelancers fall foul of those, then they will be liable for Income Tax and NI plus Employers NICs, which kind of negates the whole purpose of being being self-employed in the first place IMHO.

 

And don't forget: any profits made by a Ltd. Co. (after the first £10,000) are also subject to Corporation Tax :o

 

In the long run it means you could be slightly better off though it does involve slightly more paperwork.

Hmmm... Speaking as a businessman myself, "long run" and "slightly" are the terms that spring out at me there. Once again: if you are a freelancer, you should seek independent advice (from your accountant) as to what kind of trading entity (temporary employee, self-employed freelancer or Ltd. Co.) best suits you and not allow yourself to be influenced / bullied into becoming a Ltd. Co. under the thinly veiled threat of less / no work.

 

Nearly all of my sub contractors now operate this way and not only does it keep it clean for me but they have all said it assists them in financial and image ways.

Can we have some testimonials to that effect, please? Can you better define what you mean by "image ways"?

 

John Simpson at White Light says it very well by saying the Tax Office are trying to use us as tax collectors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what's new? Mr. Simpson and every other company in the land already collects tax for the Government and Europe in the form of PAYE on their full time employees and VAT on their Goods & Services. Why should it be such a problem adding freelancers to the list?

 

Forgive me (or not - I don't care TBH), but to me, the whole move towards trying to push freelancers into becoming Ltd. Co's, is a cynical attempt by the employers (which is frankly what they really are), to dump as many of their responsibilities onto their workforce (the people who get things done and make it all happen for them) as possible and deny them many rights in the process.

 

It doesn't matter what kind of false paper trail you are trying to create to disguise the employment of your crews, both you and they will be found out in the end. The Revenue are not stupid, if anything they are sharper, more aggressive and more avaricious than ever before. Despite whatever flag you try to fly your crew under, I bet you still tell them when to start work, when to stop, where to eat, where to sleep and how to travel; i.e. treat them as though they worked for you, like employees do. If your crews are genuinely freelance, then they should be telling you all of this.

 

Never has there been a greater disincentive to become a freelancer IMHO :(

 

One way or another, this folly will be paid for eventually, mark my words. Either through the imposition of tax liabilities or a reduction in the amount of available freelance labour, which will lead to a rise in rates.

 

Good God, if having to pay for your own insurance, tools, PPE, training, etc., while having your rates pushed down at the same time wasn't enough already ;)

 

I just wonder what the Inland Revenue Compliance Office would (will?) have to say about it all ;)

 

Bring on the Google spiders ;)

[paulears]

My accountant has specifically not recommended the Ltd option for my business - last year with the small extra tax benefits it was just about worth it. The increase in accountancy fees, record keeping etc, left me sitting on the fence. Luckily, my regular clients are not shortsighted enough to have a ltd only rule. For obvious reasons the invoice wording is carefully chosen. They are all quite happy with the arrangement. It may well be the individual revenue case officer who perhaps looks more closely at high turnover companies who perhaps should have employees if turnover is linked to staff numbers.

 

It does occur to me that discriminating against the sole trader or partnership in favour of a limited company could be problematic too.

 

If someone (like me) pays tax, NI, accountants, solicitors, BT, and plenty of other business costs it would be difficult to say I'm anything other than self-employed.

 

Back up the thread a while - it was mentioned about twirlies (tax and NI). It is still current practice to not deduct tax, but still to take NI. Very annoying as you end up paying twice and, as far as I know, there isn't any way of getting it back. Equally I do a lot of work for a company who will not under any circumstance treat me as self-employed. They deduct as per PAYE. Strangely, this doesn't cause any accountancy problems and I normally get most of it back. In this case, I can't actually invoice them at all. Revenue are quite happy with this - even though I've only got one tax reference number.

 

If I understood all this - I'd become an accountant!

[Piers Shepperd]

Lightnix,

 

There has to be some balance here. It feels like you are promoting freelancers to look at this, but then strongly advising them not to go Limited. This is of course your point of view.

 

A few points here;

1) I received advice from my accountant and starting trading as a limited company.

I pay less tax as a result.

 

2) I find the quarterly payments that my company makes to the inland revenue, a far easier way of budgeting through the year. I nolonger receive six monthly demands for tax money based on what I may earn in the future.

Although I've always tried to keep tax money back whilst being a freelancer the realities of our industry has meant that sometimes I've had to use tax money to fund myself and then six months later had to really panic when it came time to pay the tax bill.

Running a limited company means that there is a real division between my personal financial affairs and those of the company. This for me has turned out to be a good thing, as its forced me to be more disciplined with my finances.

 

3) My image has definitely been improved by trading as a limited company. e.g. Production companies and people who haven't worked with me before, see the limited company and are reassured (rightly or wrongly) that they are dealing with somebody who takes the paying of tax seriously. This is attractive.

The limited company has allowed me to chose a name that possibly implies a larger organisation standing behind me then just an individual (I understand that you can also trade under a different name as a sole trader, but in our industry that is rare).

For my last contract I was definitely able to negotiate a higher fee because I was a limited company, rather then being freelance.

 

4) I spent maybe 10 years as a freelancer, and during this time I was registered for VAT. I therefore kept records of receipts etc and sorted them out in order to make a return every quarter.

I find that there really is only a very small increase in the amount of paperwork needing to be generated as a limited company.

 

5) There is a strong feeling from your posts that you will not be tolerate being bullied by a potential company into becoming a limited company. I agree.

However look at it this way. If there is a clear tax advantage to becoming a limited company (i.e. you take home more money), and it makes you more attractive to being used to supply services), where do you personally lose out? Why can't you see this as possibly being beneficial to both parties?

I don't have a problem with a client trying to protect themselves from potential tax liabilities.

 

6) Regarding a potential client dictating where you start work, when to stop, where to eat, where to sleep and how to travel.

I think you understand very well how productions work. Lets pretend you weren't supplying services, but were supplying equipment. Do you honestly expect an equipment supplier to be able to dictate to a client how and at what time the equipment would be available? - No, the equipment supplier has to work around the production schedule and this is fixed.

When an equipment supplier also supplies full time crew, the production will specify when they work, eat, and where they stay.

The equipment suppliers ultimately have the choice on where the crew stay and where they eat, but you have to be practical. If a production is booking 50 hotel rooms and supplying catering, they will always be cheaper due to the economies of scale.

 

7) There is a danger of falling foul of IR 35 regulations. Could you name when this has happened? Your "IF" in my experience is a big "IF"

 

8) I really don't think its unreasonable for me to prove that if I can't complete a job, I will substitute somebody else. The client is paying for my services, but I am (sadly) completely replaceable by somebody else of similar skills. There have been cases where I've overlapped and had to ask somebody to start a load in until I was present.

I'm now building up a small network of people who can do the same for my design services.

 

9) I welcome the post from paulears. Professional advice has been taken and the decision taken was not to go limited. This is how it should work.

 

10) <<And don't forget: any profits made by a Ltd. Co. (after the first £10,000) are also subject to Corporation Tax>> - yes quite so. However how does the rate of corporation tax compare to personal tax?

What is your personal allowance? Is it not smaller the £10,000?

This is exactly the kind of stuff that an accountant will advise you about.

I found that the paying of dividends was far more flexible time wise for a limited company then for an individual.

 

11) As a complete aside, I can strongly recommend looking at the VAT flat rate scheme, if you are registered for VAT. The idea is too simplify the administration of VAT, and in some cases you may pay less.

See VAT flat rate article

 

My post is just trying to present a view and pose questions from another perspective.

 

Cheers,

 

Piers

[Guest lightnix]

Thanks Piers, I'm glad you posted that. It's good to hear the point of view of someone who has taken the Ltd. Co. route, because it was the right thing for them to do :)

 

1) I received advice from my accountant and starting trading as a limited company.

I pay less tax as a result.

Fair enough. Once again, being a Ltd. Co. can work for some freelancers. I'm glad it does for you and wish you all the best with it. Were I in the position of being, say, a full-time freelance LD, it is definitely something I would do myself and use to my best advantage.

 

2) I find the quarterly payments that my company makes to the inland revenue, a far easier way of budgeting through the year... I've always tried to keep tax money back whilst being a freelancer the realities of our industry has meant that sometimes I've had to use tax money to fund myself and then six months later had to really panic when it came time to pay the tax bill.

Tell me about it, I've been there myself on more than one occasion; often due to being paid late - very late, months on some occasions.

Running a limited company means that there is a real division between my personal financial affairs and those of the company. This for me has turned out to be a good thing, as its forced me to be more disciplined with my finances.

I agree 100%. That's why I set up Wavicle as a Ltd. Co., rather than doing it as a sole trader. It was something I wanted to be separate from my "everyday" life, that would also bring a little more regularity and discipline to my work. If a production project came up, which called upon my "LED abilities" :blink: , then I would quite possibly do it through the Company, rather than as a sole trader.

 

3) My image has definitely been improved by trading as a limited company..

Understood, particularly if you are dealing directly with Prod. Co's rather than Hire Co's.

 

Production companies and people who haven't worked with me before, see the limited company and are reassured (rightly or wrongly) that they are dealing with somebody who takes the paying of tax seriously. This is attractive.

Understood - to a point, although I don't see why a UTR No., a letter from a qualified accountant confirming true self-employed status, along with your own PL insurance and evidence of training courses cannot do the same thing.

 

The limited company has allowed me to chose a name that possibly implies a larger organisation standing behind me then just an individual

Once again I know what you mean. Running Wavicle as a Ltd. Co. gets me taken far more seriously by suppliers and clients alike and there have been a couple of very interesting and promising enquiries this month, which quite possibly would simply not have come "our" way, but for the "Ltd." bit.

 

(I understand that you can also trade under a different name as a sole trader, but in our industry that is rare).

Yes, I could set up a business bank account as "lightnix" and trade as a sole trader under that name. It is rare, but (now you mention it) could possibly be a good "half way house" for freelancers looking to "trade up" to being a Ltd. Co. For example: a lighting tech who is starting to get more design work might possibly be able to use this route to establish some kind of "corporate identity" as a first step to becoming a full on limited company, but who wants to take things one step at a time.

 

4) I spent maybe 10 years as a freelancer, and during this time I was registered for VAT... I find that there really is only a very small increase in the amount of paperwork needing to be generated as a limited company.

If you're running VAT, then yes, that does account for a lot of the paperwork and the step up in paperwork is not so great. However, not all freelancers register under VAT, again because they feel the advantage of doing so is outweighed by the increase in paperwork.

 

5) There is a strong feeling from your posts that you will not be tolerate being bullied by a potential company into becoming a limited company. I agree.

Good. This is the real crux of my problem with the way the Ltd. Co. "solution" has been pushed at freelancers. It has been done "across the board", as some kind of "catch all solution", by some companies, regardless of whether a Ltd. Co. is a suitable trading vehicle for a particular crew member. It has been done so that these companies can continue to treat their crews as though they were employees, without taking the responsibility that should go with it. This is something I find unethicaland unprofessional.

 

However look at it this way. If there is a clear tax advantage to becoming a limited company (i.e. you take home more money), and it makes you more attractive to being used to supply services), where do you personally lose out? Why can't you see this as possibly being beneficial to both parties?

Please believe me when I say that I can and do see it that way, IF being a Ltd. Co. genuinely brings those advantages to a freelancer without incurring needless liabilities. I've said many times already that it can for some people, but not all by any means.

 

I don't have a problem with a client trying to protect themselves from potential tax liabilities.

It just depends why they are trying to do it. If it's for the reasons that I've just mentioned, then I have a big problem with it. If you want to "employ" people, as stormster said, then I think you should take the responsibilities and risks that go with that decision. I think you have a moral responsibility to do that.

 

6) Regarding a potential client dictating where you start work, when to stop... I think you understand very well how productions work... Do you honestly expect an equipment supplier to be able to dictate to a client how and at what time the equipment would be available? - No, the equipment supplier has to work around the production schedule and this is fixed.

There's nothing wrong with setting a deadline, or saying at what time kit or people need to be at a venue in order to achieve it, it's what happens in the meantime that can be an indicator of employment / self-employment.

 

When an equipment supplier also supplies full time crew, the production will specify when they work, eat, and where they stay... cheaper due to the economies of scale.

I agree with the "economies of scale" arguement, but not with the when to "work / eat" one. Any self-employed / Ltd. Co. subcontactor should be free to decide the manner in which the work is done and as long as the deadlines are met (lights rigged by 21.00, focussed by 15.00, etc) that shouldn't be a problem. What irritates me is the "do this, do that, when I say so" arguement, as though the crew were employees of the company.

 

7) There is a danger of falling foul of IR 35 regulations. Could you name when this has happened? Your "IF" in my experience is a big "IF"

Yes, it is a big "IF", especially if you get caught out. Why do you think Prod. / Hire Co's are so keen on Ltd. Co. freelancers? Because although it may be a "big if", it's an even "bigger if", if they get caught out by falling foul of IR56. If it's too big a risk for them, isn't it just as great a risk for a freelancer? I'll admit there have been no IR35 cases brought against Ltd. Co. freelance techs so far and I hope there never are, but it's early days yet. The Ltd. Co. freelancer is a fairly recent phenomenon in the business - only 2½ years old at the moment.

 

8) I really don't think its unreasonable for me to prove that if I can't complete a job, I will substitute somebody else. The client is paying for my services... I'm now building up a small network of people who can do the same for my design services.

Great - that virtually proves you are truly self-employed. You just have to ensure that your substitutes have the same right of substitution (or are themselves Ltd Co's) in order to avoid any tax liability yourself.

 

9) I welcome the post from paulears. Professional advice has been taken and the decision taken was not to go limited. This is how it should work.Once again I agree :o You have both done the correct thing in taking advice and acting on it accordingly. This IS the way it should be :) My concern is for those who may be discriminated against because their advice says that being a Ltd. Co. is not the right thing for them, by nature of the work they do or the manner in which they are required to do it

 

10) <<And don't forget: any profits made by a Ltd. Co. (after the first £10,000) are also subject to Corporation Tax>> - yes quite so. However how does the rate of corporation tax compare to personal tax?

What is your personal allowance? Is it not smaller the £10,000?

This is exactly the kind of stuff that an accountant will advise you about.

I found that the paying of dividends was far more flexible time wise for a limited company then for an individual.

That could be a very long answer and one that I'm not fully qualified to give TBH. As you say, it's one for the accountants.

 

11) As a complete aside, I can strongly recommend looking at the VAT flat rate scheme, if you are registered for VAT. The idea is too simplify the administration of VAT, and in some cases you may pay less.

See VAT flat rate article

Definitely worth checking out. VAT registration can be a good way to maximise the profits of a freelancer, although it does involve more paperwork. It's still worth checking out, though.

 

My post is just trying to present a view and pose questions from another perspective.

And thanks very much for taking the time - it was very informative and certainly added some balance to the thread.

 

Piers, I've known you a long time and have a lot of respect for the work you do, the professionalism you show and the way you have built your career. All the successes you achieve have been worked hard for and are thoroughly deserved IMHO.

 

I'm sorry if what I say comes across as a rant sometimes, it's not meant to, it's just that this is a subject close to my heart. I'm not trying to tell people what to do in terms of which trading vehicle they should use - honestly. What I strongly object to the fact that some companies have tried to tell them, with the threat of less / no work if they do not comply. What I'm trying to make clear that it should be the choice of the freelancer, based on the independent advice that they have been given, as to which trading vehicle is most advantageous to them.

 

On the "third side of the coin" (as it were), I have met freelancers who have expressed a wish to be taxed as temporary employees, under PAYE. While they accept that this may lead to a lower rate of pay, it would also lead to the removal of many expenses from their working lives, not least insurance. It is possible to be a PAYE freelancer and still claim some expenses, if theye are written into the contract. It could also, despite the short term disadvantages actually benefit some employers, by clearing away much of the "fog" that surrounds the booking of crew under the current system.

 

Cheers,

Piers

Luv yoo :wub:

Nick

 

PS - I can't seem to get the quote function working here :( hope it doesn't make the post too unreadable.

EDIT: By Bryson. Hmmm...find and replace with italics tags seems to work and makes readability a bit better. Perhaps theres a limit on the number of quotes per post? I'll ask Peter when he re-surfaces. For now, I guess you'll have to imagine...

Edit2:There is a limit of ?10 quotes per post. If needs be, split the post over two posts to include all the quotes, or make your reply within the quote box, but change the font colour. P

[stormster]

I did not realise that this thread would create such an aggressive reponse from Mr cooke to my post.

 

Might I say at this moment it was not my intention to generate any ill will.

 

My use of the word employ may have been ill advised when it seems semantics are the issue, but I employ a company to repave my drive or employ a double glazing company to reglaze the house......I would use the word employ and it was in that form I intended it used.

 

I feel piers spells out a lot of the positives for freelancers becoming a ltd company.

 

However I have to stress that each individual needs to choose the correct vehcile for them.

 

I whole heartedly agree that if you are self employed and meet all the tax offices criteria,spelled out eloquently by yourself earlier, then if you do not wish to change your status then you should not.

 

My question and issue is with the tax office who have advised that the only 100% way that we will never be responsible for a subcontractors defaulted tax liabilities is if they are a Ltd company. It is this kind of aggressive stance from the Tax office that generate the need for companies to protect themselves.

 

Of course if everyone in the chain pays tax on time then it will never be an issue.

 

I do and am happy to "employ" on a PAYE basis, or Subcontract freelancers/ sole traders llp's Ltd companies in which ever form.

 

I hope this does not irritate you in any way again not my intention but I find this forum a good way to see the feeling of others within the industry.

 

On a purely gossip basis but in the same vein, it was whispered in my ear that the tax office have gone after neg earth for the NI contributions for their tour staff???? anyone heard anything??

[Bryson]

I did not realise that this thread would create such an aggressive reponse from Mr cooke to my post.

 

I'm sure he doesn't mean anything by it...he just enjoys a good debate!

 

I'll try and work out what's happening to those quote tags

[Guest lightnix]

Thank you, Bryson for cleaning up the post - much appreciated. Yes, as you may have noticed, I do enjoy a good debate - if only this forum served beer as well

Thanks also to stormster for expanding on his original post - also much appreciated. Fear not, no ill will has been generated and I hope we get to share a pint or two some day - I'm not all politics, honestly. Believe it or not, I still enjoy setting up the odd rig or two (gobo focussing a speciality at the moment, or so it seems). At the end of the day I take the "Voltarian view" i.e. that I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. I hope you feel the same way :) This is what web forums are for :wub:

 

As for the rumour about Neg Earth - AFAIK it was started maliciously by a rival lighting company at PLASA last year and is quite probably not true, so be careful about repeating it :blink:

 

I don't really have any more to add to what I've already said many times on this subject, in several other threads. In the end, from my point of view, it's up to the freelancers to take independent advice,from an accountant, as to which trading vehicle is in their own best interests to work under and act upon it, without fear of prejudice from anybody (including me).

[Jivemaster]

Words from my accountant (known to others on here) One of the IR's criteria for self employment is interchangeability or substitutability Can I substitute someone else. Strangely many of us seem to aspire to that level where substitution would not be possible -designers of light sound etc. As a DJ wou would substitute Tony Blackburn with or for Fatboy Slim.

[neverbackwards]

Firstly, you need to get an accountant to register you as self-employed

 

Since when? Have done my own taxes for years the Inland rev. never asked me if I had an account

[Guest lightnix]

Hello, neverbackwards, welcome to the Blue Room :)

 

Fair enough, but you do need to be registered as self-employed if you are not having tax deducted at source. Furthermore, an accountant can save some grief - the Revenue are less likely to question the accounts if an accountant has prepared them.

[neverbackwards]

Sorry lightnix,

Didn't mean to come in guns blazing! Seems to be many opinions about

freelance / sch D / ltd company /paye /LLP (the list goes on), and when the revenue will clamp down. They been saying this for a while. Does anyone know when this will happen (My small conversation w/the IRD didn't help they transfered me 3 times now so I gave up)

[Guest lightnix]

No problem, my own guns have blazed so much I think they've melted :)

 

My accountant usually warns me of any current / up and coming Revenue "campaigns" at our annual meeting (another benefit of having one). In the meantime, how "strictly" you get treated is often down to which tax office you come under - they all interpret the rules in their own ways and there never seems to be a consistent national policy.

[cfmonk]

Hi,

 

I run my Part time events business as a limited company. This is mainly because some of the events I do are events in their own right and I am not working "for" somone else i.e. I am the promoter and everything else.

 

What I have found strange about this topic is the "need for an accountant" whilst that has been qualified a bit towards the end I would just like to reassure people reading that it isn't that complicated. I used an online service to create the company, I use Quickbooks to do the accounts, I do the payroll manually and none of it is overly complicated. Just boring. However much the Inland Revenue are slated here, they do look after you. The new employers helpline and information they send you does make it rather easy, companies house will also help you regarding annual returns etc.

 

Also there are many forums on the internet (similar to this) that more experienced small business oweners help out the lesser experienced ones. Whilst this does come with all the obvious pitfalls they are very useful. Also, Business Link are more than happy to help and do provide great information in a friendly way (they will answer as mnany "dumb" questions as you can think of) and they are all just a phone call away.

 

Also, on the point of being a limited company helping your image I would have to agree whole heartedly. I am young (19) and so I suffer from a lot of people not taking me seriously! It's one of those things that happens but in peoples minds when I mention But Seriously Events LTD! they all seem to change their attitude.

 

All the best,

 

Chris

 

P.S. On a slightly less mature note, does anyone else like the oversized cheque books you get for business accounts? B-)