Sole Trader v Limited Company.
Sole Trader v Limited Company.
Author
Discussion

Jon Ison

Original Poster:

1,304 posts

264 months

Friday 16th January 2009
quotequote all
Done a search and done plenty of reading elsewhere but looking for real world advice, as the title says really, currently running as sole trader but thinking of going private limited company, husband and wife team no employees.

Annual Turnover £100k rising.

Route324

159 posts

229 months

Friday 16th January 2009
quotequote all
Why? whats the motivation for going Limited?

Jon Ison

Original Poster:

1,304 posts

264 months

Friday 16th January 2009
quotequote all
Exactly, should there be any ? That's why we are asking if there are no benefits then we are happy to stay just as we are.

dungeon master

14,872 posts

240 months

Friday 16th January 2009
quotequote all
Jon Ison said:
Done a search and done plenty of reading elsewhere but looking for real world advice, as the title says really, currently running as sole trader but thinking of going private limited company, husband and wife team no employees.

Annual Turnover £100k rising.
Depends on a number of things really, but turnover doesn't help in giving any advice whatsoever.

You say sole trader, but then mention wife, are you in a partnership? what are the profits and how are they split.

Savings can be made if you make large profits and don't withdraw them, but there are increased fees etc to take into account etc, lots to discuss, perhaps your current accountant is the best person to advise?


Smiler.

11,752 posts

261 months

Friday 16th January 2009
quotequote all
Might depend on what type of business you are in.

Certainly not worth it unless you need the limited liability.

jamesuk28

2,176 posts

284 months

Friday 16th January 2009
quotequote all
There can be (as I have found) certain tax benefits, but it all depends on your individual circumstances.

Eric Mc

125,873 posts

296 months

Saturday 17th January 2009
quotequote all
Over the last three or four years, the government has eroded the tax benefits of limited v' sole-trader. However, they still exist and they can still be worthwhile.
On the assumption that IR35 is not a relevant isssue, the use of dividends is still an effective method of remunerating the director/shareholders and the failure of the Revenue's attack on Mr and Mrs Jones (Arctic Systems Ltd) still leaves dividend splitting as a viable tax planning tool.
Dividends still work tremendously well if the recipients are not higher rate tax payers.
The main advantage of a limited company is still the "limited liability" aspect.

The main downsides are the increased bureaucracy, the increase in the necessity to adhere to government imposed filing and payment deadlines, the almost certain neccessity to register for PAYE and all that entails and the increased professional costs that will be incurred to keep on top of it all.

Simpo Two

93,056 posts

296 months

Saturday 17th January 2009
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
The main advantage of a limited company is still the "limited liability" aspect.
Although as I understand it, if the company has loans they can be secured against assets such as the house... so if the business fails they could still lose their house. I stand to be corrected though.

Eric Mc

125,873 posts

296 months

Saturday 17th January 2009
quotequote all
That can be the case - although it would only be down to the directors making a decision to borrow or secure a bank overdraft using their own personal assets as collateral. Obviously, if they chose to do this, they are negating to a large extent the reason why they set the business up as a limited company in the first place.

Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 17th January 17:19

Simpo Two

93,056 posts

296 months

Saturday 17th January 2009
quotequote all
Agreed.

I find it strange that some organisations - I'm thinking Local Government in particular - seem more confident dealing with limited companies but worried about sole traders. To my mind, the limited company can go pop overnight leaving a pile of creditors and incompleted projects, while the sole trader will be still be there.

johnbear

1,568 posts

266 months

Saturday 17th January 2009
quotequote all
Route324 said:
Why? whats the motivation for going Limited?
Hello! You'd have to be mad to trade as a partnership or sole trader.
One enters business to earn a living, but events such as this recession can quickly change that.
A limited company if it does nothing else limits your liability to the value of it's shares. Compare that to a sole trader who can lose their home, savings etc.

Don't be stupid only trade via a limited company and don't give personal guarantees (if you have to, limit them to £5000 or less and a time period).



Edited by johnbear on Saturday 17th January 23:48

Eric Mc

125,873 posts

296 months

Sunday 18th January 2009
quotequote all
johnbear said:
Route324 said:
Why? whats the motivation for going Limited?
Hello! You'd have to be mad to trade as a partnership or sole trader.
One enters business to earn a living, but events such as this recession can quickly change that.
A limited company if it does nothing else limits your liability to the value of it's shares. Compare that to a sole trader who can lose their home, savings etc.

Don't be stupid only trade via a limited company and don't give personal guarantees (if you have to, limit them to £5000 or less and a time period).

It's not as clear cut as that. For some small traders a limited company may not be appropriate. For instance, I doubt if it would be right for every window cleaner in the land to form a company. Some professionals are also barred from running their activities through a limited company.
A sole trader can minimise his exposure to risk by taking out adequate and appropriate insurance and, for some activities, forming a limited liability partnership might be an option.



Edited by johnbear on Saturday 17th January 23:48

mel

10,168 posts

306 months

Sunday 18th January 2009
quotequote all
Just to cloud the issue a bit more, what's the score with LLP's they seem to be the best of both worlds?

Eric Mc

125,873 posts

296 months

Sunday 18th January 2009
quotequote all
The tax savings are minimal - no different to an ordinary partnership as the partners are taxed on theoir share of partnership income just like in a non-limited partnership. The benefit really is in the "limitation of liability" aspect.
They are increasingly popular with profesional firms (solicitors, accountants, architects, surveyots etc) who may have professional ethical restrictions on trading through limited companies.

For more "normal" traders, a standard limited company is probably still the best option if going down the limited liability path.

mel

10,168 posts

306 months

Sunday 18th January 2009
quotequote all
Just to cloud the issue a bit more, what's the score with LLP's they seem to be the best of both worlds?

johnbear

1,568 posts

266 months

Monday 19th January 2009
quotequote all
OK, take your point regarding those who cannot use a limited company for legal reasons.

But even for a window cleaner, an company is a wise protection measure. Insurance doesn't cover you running into debt through no fault of your own. I know IT guy with his own small business employing 2 staff. He slipped of a ladder whilst installing network cables and broke his foot. The fool's he employed sat on their arses whilst he was unable to get to the office and the business went south. Ok, he wasn't the best business man but a limited company would have protected him.

You pay your money and take your chances. £50 for a limited company might the best £50 ever spent in the current enviroment.

anonymous-user

85 months

Tuesday 20th January 2009
quotequote all
johnbear said:
OK, take your point regarding those who cannot use a limited company for legal reasons.

But even for a window cleaner, an company is a wise protection measure. Insurance doesn't cover you running into debt through no fault of your own. I know IT guy with his own small business employing 2 staff. He slipped of a ladder whilst installing network cables and broke his foot. The fool's he employed sat on their arses whilst he was unable to get to the office and the business went south. Ok, he wasn't the best business man but a limited company would have protected him.

You pay your money and take your chances. £50 for a limited company might the best £50 ever spent in the current enviroment.
It's not just £50 though is it? Increased accountancy fees etc etc.