Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Savvy Billing Practices

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Ø       you still have to take it as income so there is probably no net tax gain.

 

Who Says? Why spoil the party? Big Oil companies and large corporations receive more tax breaks and know more loopholes than any small firm will ever be able to take advantage of.

 

Reporting a camping trip because it was services exchanged in lieu of payment is really streeeeeeeeetching it, but Maybe that is the engineer in you.

 

Implying that you must report services exchanged in lieu of payment, so you might as well just charge them is a very bad policy…

 

Kevin

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:mdeardorff(--nospam--at)burkett-wong.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:16 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Savvy Billing Practices

 

All I know is that he hasn’t done it in years. I think some of the projects were simply bad investments. We have been offered such opportunities but, upon analysis, we felt we could invest the money more profitably. Even when you trade services you still have to take it as income so there is probably no net tax gain.

 

Mark E. Deardorff, Structural Engineer
Burkett & Wong
San Diego, CA


From: Jeremy White [mailto:jwhite(--nospam--at)holbertapple.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 2:03 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Savvy Billing Practices

 

Mark,

 

It seems architects have more opportunity for this type of thing since they are generally the prime on the project and they have direct contact with the client.  SE’s can’t really barter with architects (or can they?).  Did this architect end up making out pretty well financially or did it just make his life too complicated? 

 

Jeremy

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:mdeardorff(--nospam--at)burkett-wong.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:53 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Savvy Billing Practices

 

I knew an architect that used to trade services for a piece of the pie. But typically he only contributed his profit and overhead. He needed to maintain a cash flow to cover labor costs.

 

Mark E. Deardorff, Structural Engineer
Burkett & Wong
San Diego, CA


From: Jeremy White [mailto:jwhite(--nospam--at)holbertapple.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:29 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Savvy Billing Practices

 

It seems to me most structural consulting firms bill their engineers out at approximately the same rates (NYC firms may be higher than average?).  A firm with a well known brand name may be able to bill higher, but they still can’t bill too far beyond the curve or architects will go to a lower priced firm.  I believe that an hourly or lump sum billing can’t be the only way to get paid for a job.  Does anyone know of any firms, engineers or architects, who have been creative in how the get “paid” for a job, such as, doing work for free but gaining partial ownership of the building in return for their consulting? 

 

Thanks,

Jeremy White