Sure/Start Ups

What’s the basis for denying start up professional service firms from tax reliefs and grant aids ? Seems completely unfair for new firms looking to set up, especially as prospective employers.

Are there other reliefs/grants ?

Some of the qualifying criteria are outlined here. As are other schemes that may be of relevance.
You might want to be more specific about what you're asking or complaining about.

Basis was the wrong word. I’m familiar with the criteria but just don’t understand the reason why a professional service start up is denied start up tax reliefs like SURE and/or grants from local authorities.

Your issue/complaint still seems unclear/vague to me to be perfectly honest.

It's not at all unclear.

The Irish tax code discriminates in all sorts of petty ways against professional services providers such as doctors, dentists, engineers, accountant, solicitors, barristers, architects etc.

There is no rational basis for it except begrudgery.
.

Maybe because SURE is designed to create large companies that will export services like software companies. Service based professions like accountants etc ren't going to (at least to the same level)

Why not, @flyingfolly? It's not the 1990s anymore. Why did Irishman Declan Kelly have to go to New York to form and build Teneo for example?

There can be a number of reasons, some companies just don't fall into scope. For example, LEO cannot grant aid anything in the gambling industry.

Secondly, they have a defined budget to live within for grants and in particular towards the end of a year, if that budget is used up, they may defer or tell you to apply next year. That budget also drives priority and under their rules, priority can be given to firms with export potential. One of the aims of a LEO is to help a business grow so it can be handed over to Enterprise Ireland

Thirdly, there is what is called displacement. LEO will quite often not grant aid a new start up if it means another firm 5 miles down the road will end up going out of business or laying people off as a result. That's the main reason why LEO very rarely grant aid Professional Services set ups.

You also need to ensure your tax affairs are in order and satisfy LEO that you have the skills and capacity to handle the business. I've sat on the approval committees in the past, the most common reasons for refusing a grant was because the entrepreneur would not listen, thought he knew better and in my experience, 90% of those companies and idea went to the wall within a couple of years.

The risk of displacement is a red herring when it comes to denying tax reliefs to, or imposing particular tax stringencies on, firms in particular sectors, as these are obviously universally applicable to all players in a particular sector.

In most cases for small and startup firms, grant aids generally aren't worth the hassle as the associated bureaucracy tends to absorb much of the financial benefit.

T McGibney said:

The risk of displacement is a red herring when it comes to denying tax reliefs to, or imposing particular tax stringencies on, firms in particular sectors, as these are obviously universally applicable to all players in a particular sector.

In most cases for small and startup firms, grant aids generally aren't worth the hassle as the associated bureaucracy tends to absorb much of the financial benefit.

Click to expand...

My comment on displacement was based on grant aid from a counties LEO, I can't comment on the overall tax reliefs and policies

As for grant aid, I've seen companies play the grant game very well and come back to the well a number of times and end up getting 6 figure sums in total. However those were companies that, for example, could produce proper sets of accounts and have realistic sales forecasts backed by realistic cost forecasts. In other words, they were being run properly. The paperwork required for a small firm to get funding for lets say a 50k contribution to a piece of machinery is a bit onerous then when applying for a loan but then it is free money they are applying for when the look for a grant.

Petsonally, I would need to be convinced that taxpayers should finance any new firm.

If there are to be grants, then the taxpayers should have an equity stake.

Taxpayers fund capital equipment grants for manufacturing and internationally traded firms every day of the week.
It's a cornerstone of our industrial policy.

And no, only the most desperate and failing firms (who barring egregious errors won't be ever grant funded in any event) will give away an equity stake in exchange for a lousy grant.