Quotations!

[eggsarascal]

Worked ok a few years ago, allegedly.

[donnk]

8 hours ago, Steve Bullman said:

even if you are the owner of both companies?  I'm sure they'd find something to say about that

its tax neutral. 

 

we do exactly that, plant owned by co A, comp B does work and pays hire fee to comp A. Tax position doest change.

 

It does allow Comp B to go bump and protect the assets.

[Ashley-Middleton]

On 27/02/2018 at 06:50, donnk said:

its tax neutral. 

 

we do exactly that, plant owned by co A, comp B does work and pays hire fee to comp A. Tax position doest change.

 

It does allow Comp B to go bump and protect the assets.

All depends on how much hire of the equipment that it happening. Company A cannot hire say a chipper to company B at £1 for a week. It has to be inline with industry average (can't remember the exact phrasing). If company A is hiring so much equipment that it has to become VAT registered, then the hire will be plus vat which company B cannot claim back (assuming company B is going to be non registered doing domestic work). That is where you would loose out tax wise. That is if we are applying it to the original scenario of wanting a domestic work company (not vat reg) and a commercial work company (vat reg)

[skyhuck]

On 27/02/2018 at 06:50, donnk said:

its tax neutral. 

 

we do exactly that, plant owned by co A, comp B does work and pays hire fee to comp A. Tax position doest change.

 

It does allow Comp B to go bump and protect the assets.

How can it be "tax neutral"? the hire charge is income to Co A, which increases turnover, without any actual increases in revenue. I'm no expert, but I can't see it being a good thing.

[forestboy1978]

2 hours ago, skyhuck said:

How can it be "tax neutral"? the hire charge is income to Co A, which increases turnover, without any actual increases in revenue. I'm no expert, but I can't see it being a good thing.

I think he meant it's neutral entirely from a tax point of view, not a revenue point of view. 

 

I would guess that Hire company A could be not VAT registered and hire out to Tree company B who is VAT registered and benefit from having machinery on hand and whilst company B is not needing said machinery company A has the ability to hire out to whoever. Company B could also hire out at a discounted rate of some sort and pass this cost on to the customer and then pay their VAT. 

 

Sounds overly complicated though when you could just commit to the one company and put all revenue into that company and bite the bullet on VAT. 

[Rich Rule]

Surely it would be easier if everyone had to be Vat Reg from about 5k.  It is what happens over here and keeps the playing field level.

 

Everyone is used to it and no one I have met complains.  

[Steve Bullman]

15 minutes ago, Rich Rule said:

Surely it would be easier if everyone had to be Vat Reg from about 5k.  It is what happens over here and keeps the playing field level.

 

Everyone is used to it and no one I have met complains.  

This has been said for years and couldnt be truer IMO

[Rich Rule]

Over here I had to go Vat reg at 50000NOK.  I did the work billed them the normal rate.  Once you hit 50K you request VAT registration and send copies of the invoices.  It took about 4 weeks, to come through.  All that time I was still invoicing without VAT, but explained the situation.

 

Both private and contract climbing customers said no bother, just send the invoice for the VAT when the registration is complete.

 

I don't think it could have been any smoother, apart from dealing with my accountant.

 

 

(That is another note, but I am sure accountants overcomplicate things to make you feel dependent on using their services)

[forestboy1978]

Yeah to me it makes perfect sense to have the VAT at a low threshold so the playing field is levelled fully and all customers expect to pay it 99% of the time. 

 

Perhaps not 5k but maybe 20k giving absolute startups a few months or a year to get on their feet before they start paying VAT. A tiny little edge if you will. 

 

 

[Thesnarlingbadger]

I'll drop my price slightly if it is a job I'd really like to do but I certainly wouldn't knock £200 off a low priced job. It's worth over quoting on some jobs if you sense a bit of negotiation coming your way.

 I once priced a beech fell at £500 (very reasonable for the work involved) but he didn't want the wood and my log store was looking a bit dry at the time so I though worth the hit. he phoned back and told me someone will do it for £150 and could I match that, I kindly said no thank you and forgot all about it. Drove past his a little later and noticed the tree was down and so were 2 bt lines and there were a few sizeable holes in his driveway plus a lovely pile of logs in un moveable lengths left all over the drive. I thought about offering to take the logs but thought na.