IT Contract Umbrella Company Ireland

lawnmeet

Just got offered 6 month contract, would like to use an Umbrella Company so I can keep class A PRSI going.
Can anyone recommend one? Am considering the following so far:
Fenero
Icon Accounting
CxC

Thanks

acotone

Would recommend : http://www.macs.ie/

Maybe a bit dearer but excellent service

sartay

Try this thread, might help:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83064839

JJJJNR

Recommend Icon myself, have been using them for a couple of years and can't fault them.

free_man

Hi
I have got a 1.5 yr contract.
I am new to contracting and need guidance.

I looked up umbrella management companies and found setting up Ltd company is better options.
But what about personal indemnity insurance and public insurance.

How do I get it sorted ?
Can I setup as umbrella company director, trade waters and then switch to Ltd. company ?

I found CXC, ICON and MACS costly charges wise.
What is wrong with Fenero ?

sebmore

Hi guys

Can anyone explain to me the advantage of using an umbrella company, I'm a contractor working for a large multi national company and my contract is up for renewal, i can continue working as a paye worker or have the choice of setting up an umbrella company, I have no idea how it works or what advantage would it be to me financially

Ray Palmer

acotone wrote: »

Would recommend : http://www.macs.ie/

Maybe a bit dearer but excellent service

I actually found them cheaper than lots of others offering the same service. I agree excellent service. Recommended lots of people their way.

OP you will no longer be PRSI A. However as the social welfare is worked out on the previous 2 years it won't effect you. If you get a second 6 month contract at the end of that you then it will effect you.

An Umbrella company is a company owned by an accountant that temporarily makes you a director. You don't set it up

You set up your own limited company you own.

Big difference between them is you pay monthly for the use of the umbrella company and they deal with the accounts. Some charge a percentage others a flat fee. You should not be paying more than €150 a month IMHO. You don't tend to be allowed to claim as many expenses with an umbrella company. With your own company you have to pay and manage your own taxes. The plus side is no monthly charge and you can claim more things e.g. a computer. I would advise anybody on their first contract to use an umbrella company as it lets you get to grips with how things work.

Some of what is being asked here doesn't make sense to me. A fixed term contract is you as an employee and therefore a PAYE worker. If a company is saying you can be a PAYE worker or be a contractor they should be paying you accordingly and the rates are vastly different. I am talking about 60%-100% increase as a contractor proper.

John_Mc

free_man wrote: »

Hi
I have got a 1.5 yr contract.
I am new to contracting and need guidance.

I looked up umbrella management companies and found setting up Ltd company is better options.
But what about personal indemnity insurance and public insurance.

How do I get it sorted ?
Can I setup as umbrella company director, trade waters and then switch to Ltd. company ?

I found CXC, ICON and MACS costly charges wise.
What is wrong with Fenero ?

I'm a software developer with a private limited company and had to obtain indeminity insurance covering the max of €2.6m for a public contract. Premium for the year is €1,115 so not too bad all things considered.

Ray Palmer

John_Mc wrote: »

I'm a software developer with a private limited company and had to obtain indeminity insurance covering the max of €2.6m for a public contract. Premium for the year is €1,115 so not too bad all things considered.

I have heard a few people being forced to get such insurance while contracting. It seems pretty excessive to me. That sounds like the same insurance as a tradesmen but you are no way at the same risk.

Not quite sure what the need is.

I assume it is a deductible expense?

John_Mc

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I have heard a few people being forced to get such insurance while contracting. It seems pretty excessive to me. That sounds like the same insurance as a tradesmen but you are no way at the same risk.

Not quite sure what the need is.

I assume it is a deductible expense?

It's a condition of working on a public (government) contract. You need to be tax compliant and to present a tax certificate, and also to have insurance meeting whatever they specify in the tender.

I'd disagree with you about the comparison to tradesmen and suggesting that insurance isn't required. I write software which deals with confidential data and financial transactions - if I mess up on a bad day then it can do just as much damage, if not more, than what a tradesmen can do if they mess up.

As for tax deductible, the payment is a company expense and paid by the company from that account so yes it is.

Ray Palmer

John_Mc wrote: »

It's a condition of working on a public (government) contract. You need to be tax compliant and to present a tax certificate, and also to have insurance meeting whatever they specify in the tender.

I'd disagree with you about the comparison to tradesmen and suggesting that insurance isn't required. I write software which deals with confidential data and financial transactions - if I mess up on a bad day then it can do just as much damage, if not more, than what a tradesmen can do if they mess up.

As for tax deductible, the payment is a company expense and paid by the company from that account so yes it is.

I am working on a government project too at the moment. No tax cert or insurance required. Very sensitive data also, it actually pulls other sensitive data from other agencies together.

I agree you could do damage but it isn't like you are going to kill somebody or maim them. That tends to be the thing that pushes up insurance. There is back-ups and restore along with testing so potential damage is limited. They aren't going to sue you.

The people who got it were forced to do it by a government project they were working on too. I wonder how required it is if other departments don't require it.

John_Mc

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am working on a government project too at the moment. No tax cert or insurance required. Very sensitive data also, it actually pulls other sensitive data from other agencies together.

I agree you could do damage but it isn't like you are going to kill somebody or maim them. That tends to be the thing that pushes up insurance. There is back-ups and restore along with testing so potential damage is limited. They aren't going to sue you.

The people who got it were forced to do it by a government project they were working on too. I wonder how required it is if other departments don't require it.

Ah, but just because you didn't have to doesn't mean that there's a rule that says you should

My experience with working with public contracts is that they aren't consistently enforced and can generally be all over the place :pac:

For the contract I'm about to start, I had to tender and then mini-tender. I then had to present the tax certificate and they won't sign the contract until I present confirmation of insurance.

I see what you mean about insurance but it's obviously just them covering their a$$es. My software won't kill or maim (I hope!) but bugs slip through cracks and can do damage which affects the reputation of the company as well as financially.

€1,115 isn't a bad premium for coverage of €2.6m anyway

Ray Palmer

John_Mc wrote: »

Ah, but just because you didn't have to doesn't mean that there's a rule that says you should

My experience with working with public contracts is that they aren't consistently enforced and can generally be all over the place :pac:

For the contract I'm about to start, I had to tender and then mini-tender. I then had to present the tax certificate and they won't sign the contract until I present confirmation of insurance.

I see what you mean about insurance but it's obviously just them covering their a$$es. My software won't kill or maim (I hope!) but bugs slip through cracks and can do damage which affects the reputation of the company as well as financially.

€1,115 isn't a bad premium for coverage of €2.6m anyway

I think the difference is I am actually hired by another company to work in the department so the insurance is theirs.

The premium isn't that bad in the grand scheme but it is probably higher than it should be due to the amount it covers. One developer causing that much damage is highly unlikely.

John_Mc

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think the difference is I am actually hired by another company to work in the department so the insurance is theirs.

The premium isn't that bad in the grand scheme but it is probably higher than it should be due to the amount it covers. One developer causing that much damage is highly unlikely.

Yeah that would probably be it as I'm sure the company subcontracting you has insurance.

You're right that it's excessive - the broker who arranged it said as much to me and the reasonable enough premium reflects that the underwriters feel the same I suppose.