License for photographers !

nowst

Hi all,

I read the following from - Photographers.ie - just wondering about people feel about a proposed license for photographers -

""The Irish Professional Photographers Assocation have just sent out a letter to all it's members confirming that in the past few months there has been a discussion group working on the idea of a Photographers License.
The IPPA has also requested its members to submit a list of all known Photographers in Ireland who take photographs for reward which the IPPA will forward to the Revenue Commissioners by Thursday 25th Feb.
This list can be drawn from local directories, adverts, wedding websites & wedding magazines and in some cases just from common knowledge.
This is a clear indication that the License will not make reference to a standard of workmanship or to the price charged but is to ensure that cowboys (people who do not pay tax or vat on their nixers) get entered into the Revenue Commissioners database.""

Source - Photographers.ie -

Freddie59

nowst wrote: »

Hi all,

I read the following from - Photographers.ie - just wondering about people feel about a proposed license for photographers -

""The Irish Professional Photographers Assocation have just sent out a letter to all it's members confirming that in the past few months there has been a discussion group working on the idea of a Photographers License.
The IPPA has also requested its members to submit a list of all known Photographers in Ireland who take photographs for reward which the IPPA will forward to the Revenue Commissioners by Thursday 25th Feb.
This list can be drawn from local directories, adverts, wedding websites & wedding magazines and in some cases just from common knowledge.
This is a clear indication that the License will not make reference to a standard of workmanship or to the price charged but is to ensure that cowboys (people who do not pay tax or vat on their nixers) get entered into the Revenue Commissioners database.""

Source - Photographers.ie -

A rat them up line then?

So are we saying that ALL 'professional' photographers report all THEIR earning to Revenue?:rolleyes:

That could turn into a very nasty double-edged sword.

Thoie

Well, not having a license from a self-regulated body isn't going to make much difference to customers, is it? If customers are that concerned, they can ask to see a tax clearance certificate from the Revenue showing that the photographer is tax compliant. This can be verified online.

If the IPPA license doesn't do any more than that, then, if I was a professional photographer, I'd just go with the more official Revenue Tax Clearance.

Why are the IPPA appointing themselves to do Revenue's job for them? Surely if Revenue were that excited about it they could go through ads, wedding magazines, etc. themselves?

nilhg

I can see a big drop in "I bought a body/lens from ebay and never got caught for VAT" posts.

I'm sure all the pros bought theirs from kosher sources..................

Seriously though, the recession must be biting, days of easy pickings are over.........

Freddie59

nilhg wrote: »

I can see a big drop in "I bought a body/lens from ebay and never got caught for VAT" posts.

I'm sure all the pros bought theirs from kosher sources..................

Seriously though, the recession must be biting, days of easy pickings are over.........

Indeed. And not just in photography. And not before time. The place had gone nuts price wise.

DaireQuinlan

Freddie59 wrote: »

A rat them up line then?.

It certainly looks like it, and yeah I guess that's the assumption that they're making, that all their squeaky clean IPPA members are all hand-on-heart payed up and tax compliant in all cases, so time to crack down on the competition.
In all cases of course it is the right thing to do, but it still has that weasely quality to it :-)

PCPhoto

I think its just a way for the IPPA to try to shake off a number of part-time photographers, their own numbers will drop as a result of introducing this.

However, I do think that proper licencing might be needed for some professional bodies.... at the moment there are too many people claiming to be a photographer (and earning an extra couple of hundred a month) simply because they have a DSLR. (no offence to any non-professional photographers who earn a couple of hundred a month through photography work - I've given some of you work as I find that you are capable of doing the job)

Think I might be contradicting myself there - I'm in favour of some form of licencing - however - for "part-time" photographers there should be allowances - there are some talented photographers out there who simply cant afford or dont know how to earn regular money and make a living from it.

nowst

With the downturn in the economy luxury goods like Family Portraits are no longer selling as easily.

Alot of these Studios neglected the Wedding Scene the past 5 years because it wasnt worth their while closing a studio on a saturday when the could have up to 10 portrait sessions booked.

They now want to get back into it - as weddings happen even in recession times - and are now finding it flooded with photographers, and at prices well reduced.

It does seem abit like a modern day witch hunt - which could bite the very members they are representing !

Paulw

The IPPA have no power to license anything.

PCPhoto

Paulw wrote: »

The IPPA have no power to license anything.

maybe not - but they can issue memberships based on their own terms and conditions - which may include or may be adjusted to include granting of an IPPA licence/membership only to tax compliant photographers.

ThOnda

So, elitists group want to become even more enclosed and restricted elitist group? Good for them.
Maybe they should submit extra panel for judging with application for such license

Paulw

PCPhoto wrote: »

maybe not - but they can issue memberships based on their own terms and conditions - which may include or may be adjusted to include granting of an IPPA licence/membership only to tax compliant photographers.

And so what? What if you're not a member? Will that mean you can't earn from photography? I think not.

Membership of the IPPA does not make much difference to most people on the street who want photos - portrait, wedding, etc

Does that then mean that the IPPA will audit each of their members, to ensure they are fully tax compliant? No, because they have no legal power to review anyone. Only the Revenue could do that.

All a lot of rubbish and hype, if you ask me.

Valentia

Don't start me on the IPPA!!

PCPhoto

Paulw wrote: »

And so what? What if you're not a member? Will that mean you can't earn from photography? I think not.

Membership of the IPPA does not make much difference to most people on the street who want photos - portrait, wedding, etc

Does that then mean that the IPPA will audit each of their members, to ensure they are fully tax compliant? No, because they have no legal power to review anyone. Only the Revenue could do that.

All a lot of rubbish and hype, if you ask me.

my understanding is that the IPPA are asking its members to inform the revenue of non-members and members who earn money through photography.

I'm not a member of the IPPA, my understanding of what they are looking towards doing is ensuring ALL their members are 100% compliant in an effort to stop "part-time" photographers earning extra cash through their photography.

This will not stop any decent photographer earning money (part-time or full-time non revenue compliant) - but it might mean that they earn less as they will more than likely be forced into declaring earnings 'cos the more they earn money the higher the risk they will be "reported" by an IPPA member.

It all depends on if members in the IPPA are willing to give details of photographers to the organisation - which it claims will pass onto the Revenue.

Paulw

PCPhoto wrote: »

my understanding is that the IPPA are asking its members to inform the revenue of non-members and members who earn money through photography.

I'm not a member of the IPPA, my understanding of what they are looking towards doing is ensuring ALL their members are 100% compliant in an effort to stop "part-time" photographers earning extra cash through their photography.
[/B]

But you can earn so much additional earnings before you pay tax on it anyway. I'm not sure what the actual figure is, but it's 10-15K??

Many part-time weekend photographers, doing bits and pieces may not even be coming anywhere near that turnover, so have nothing at all to fear.

Anyone, anywhere, has the ability to contact the Revenue and report someone.

This is the IPPA trying to make themselves seem more important than they actually are. They're trying to empower themselves. What a load of utter rubbish and another reason to stay well away from that "association".

DaireQuinlan

Paulw wrote: »

The IPPA have no power to license anything.

I like their use of the word 'license'. It's deliberately provocative. It implies that there's some authority behind what they're doing. OTOH it reminds me of that Muppet* Show sketch.

[Rowlf the dog is performing surgery on a patient]

Nurse: Doctor, do you have a license ??!?
Rowlf: Of course ! Every dog has a license !
Nurse: I mean a license to practice !
Rowlf: I'm practicing right now, amn't I ??!

*which is oddly appropriate

PCPhoto

Paulw wrote: »

But you can earn so much additional earnings before you pay tax on it anyway. I'm not sure what the actual figure is, but it's 10-15K??

Many part-time weekend photographers, doing bits and pieces may not even be coming anywhere near that turnover, so have nothing at all to fear.

Anyone, anywhere, has the ability to contact the Revenue and report someone.

This is the IPPA trying to make themselves seem more important than they actually are. They're trying to empower themselves. What a load of utter rubbish and another reason to stay well away from that "association".

I totally agree with you here

I didn't realise you could do a second job part-time and not get taxed on first €10-15K ...might look into this.

DaireQuinlan

PCPhoto wrote: »

I totally agree with you here

I didn't realise you could do a second job part-time and not get taxed on first €10-15K ...might look into this.

ehh, I don't think that's actually the case. AFAIK all your earnings are considered amalgamated for tax purposes, doesn't matter how many jobs you have. So if you're earning enough on your first job to get taxed at the top rate, anything you earn on your second job will be taxed at the top rate also.

Thoie

PCPhoto wrote: »

I didn't realise you could do a second job part-time and not get taxed on first €10-15K ...might look into this.

Childminders (minding 3 or fewer children) can earn €15k a year, but most other people just declare the additional income on a form (12?) at the end of the year. There may be some other jobs besides childminding that are eligible, but I'd be surprised if photography was one of them.

Thoie

PCPhoto wrote: »

This will not stop any decent photographer earning money (part-time or full-time non revenue compliant) - but it might mean that they earn less as they will more than likely be forced into declaring earnings 'cos the more they earn money the higher the risk they will be "reported" by an IPPA member.

It all depends on if members in the IPPA are willing to give details of photographers to the organisation - which it claims will pass onto the Revenue.

Who are the IPPA to say whether I'm paying tax or not? If I set myself up tomorrow as a pro photographer (don't worry, it won't happen) and starting charging people 10k for a half hour photo shoot, the IPPA has no way of knowing my tax affairs. All I have to do is send Revenue a form to register as self-employed, but I won't have to file anything until next October. Between now and then I could earn a million euros and not even Revenue would be sure how much I've taken (unless they ask in the interim) - that won't be known until I file a return.

PCPhoto

Thoie wrote: »

Who are the IPPA to say whether I'm paying tax or not? If I set myself up tomorrow as a pro photographer (don't worry, it won't happen) and starting charging people 10k for a half hour photo shoot, the IPPA has no way of knowing my tax affairs. All I have to do is send Revenue a form to register as self-employed, but I won't have to file anything until next October. Between now and then I could earn a million euros and not even Revenue would be sure how much I've taken (unless they ask in the interim) - that won't be known until I file a return.

anyone can report you to the revenue if they suspect you are not working legit (not just in photography)

what the IPPA are asking is that their members report any photographers that earn money to the organisation....the organisation will then contact the revenue....they are not asking if you pay taxes or not ...at least not yet.

so going by your example.....if you started work tomorrow as a pro photographer then in a couple of days/weeks/months (assuming the members actually report photographers) then ... a IPPA member would report you as being a photographer and earning money - and eventually the revenue would be given your details and investigate (given the speed at which some governmental departments work this could be anything from 2-5yrs later)

Freddie59

Paulw wrote: »

All a lot of rubbish and hype, if you ask me.

Fully agree. A closed shop, in other words. And I wonder how the IPPA would (or could) decide if it was just some amateur enthusiast doing a friend a favour??

Slidinginfinity

IPPA is requesting it's members report non-members for...ummm...having the feck'n audacity of trying to make a living.:eek:
Is that not like asking your member to receive some sort of retribution?:D

Thoie

PCPhoto wrote: »

anyone can report you to the revenue if they suspect you are not working legit (not just in photography)

Yes, but what are they basing their suspicions on, other than the fact I'm a photographer?

When reporting social welfare fraud, for example, you would base your suspicion on the fact that you see me at the post office each week collecting my dole, but you also see me driving off in a company van every morning. Or I've mentioned I'm claiming lone parent allowance, and you see my boyfriend pull up every evening at 5 and leave at 8 the next morning. Or perhaps you see me collecting dole for 3 different people, wearing a variety of false moustaches.

While I appreciate that anyone can report anyone for tax evasion, and rightly so, surely if you are to be anything other than vexatious you should have some reasons for your suspicion? Being a non IPPA photographer is not a suspicious activity in and of itself. I'm not going to report my local shopkeeper just because he's not part of a Spar/Centra franchise.

AnCatDubh

A licence by the IPPA would mean zit but I don't think that that it what is being suggested.

A 'regulated system' probably isn't a bad idea if it were something that you could discern that you could reasonably expect quality from the 'licence' holder (mind you I don't like the term). My personal experiences of the professional photographer has been hit and miss - i've posted many times previously about this so I won't reiterate the point. TLDR, one case we're lucky to have a single image from a very special day and a second where the chap in question did a runner with no end images of that special day. Anyhow I can also appreciate that there are hard working and decent professionals that do deliver.

read some of the comments on the blog entry. Things must be getting hard out there when you depend on your living for your photography.

However it is fanciful to 'attribute blame' for professional photographers going to the wall on those which imo have to be few in number and not paying their due taxes. If it is a significant problem then revenue will be on to it. The IPPA should not concern themselves with the taxes of others when it doesn't appear be based on an evidential approach. I'm not dismissing it, I have no evidence to the contrary but there has been no evidence pointed to on the blog post or subsequent comment as to a factual position and actual nature of the problem (if at all it exists).

There also appears to be a finger of blame pointed towards the revenue commissioners. Like it or not (and none of us like having to pay taxes) but the system of taxation is the basis on which the country runs and works quite simply - you earn money and you pay tax at varying rates (a different argument as to the overall fairness etc..., not for here).

If you are a professional photographer and can't afford to live as seems to be the sentiment being expressed, after paying taxes then you really need a new profession. The guy referred to that had to close the studio after 10 years because "the revenue commissioners" actually wanted the amount of tax which was due to be paid by the studio, of course has my sympathy in terms of the predicament they found themselves in but seriously, apart from the sad occasion of the studio closing, get an accountant, a business partner, an innovator, a leader, an investor. Revolutionise your business model. ehhh..... like..... it don't appear to be working. To the owner who ever they are - from what was posted on the blog comments, you might be the nicest person in the world but it appears that you shouldn't be running a business.

I think exception can be taken to the commentary that if you have a full time job and are earning money from photography then you are depriving a professional photographer of their living. Simply put, grow up lads, stop whining and get on with it. You need to give people a reason that they will come to you. To use the management speak - What is your unique selling proposition? You take photographs? Well so do a lot of people. You take photographs at the top of Mount Everest - now there's a unique selling proposition. Not a lot of people can be doing that. You take photographs at weddings, well so do a lot of people and auto feicin mode is being made better and better by the good engineers in Japan. Look, the world works very simply - If you can't earn a living at what you do regardless of how much you like it or how good you are at it, well its time to go get yourself a job as an employee.

As for ratting people out - absolutely, if you have the evidence that anyone is making money and not paying taxes then it is a civic duty to let the relevant authorities know. Don't go scowering the local focus magazine (sorry, a Trim reference) for the "we take photo's" mini ad with no knowledge of what is their setup. But if you have the evidence and will be witness and accuser then why not. Not paying the amount of tax prescribed by law is illegal and should be dealt with appropriately.

Me? For the record, I don't make money from photography at the present time.

Paulw

I don't make a living from photography. Far from it, I just cover my costs (insurance, association fees, travel, etc). This year, I will be submitting my tax returns in Oct, as the Revenue require. That doesn't bother me at all.

I would very much object to some wanna-be organisation like IPPA reporting me to the Revenue, just because I am not a member of their organisation and I earn some money from photography.

I am not a professional photographer, I'm a hobby photographer who earns some money from what I do.

As for depriving some from a living, I don't believe that I do. I compete in a fair and open market. I found a bit of a niche, and I do ok from that. I certainly don't make enough to put anyone out of business, but if the IPPA have an issue, that's their tough luck.

mikeanywhere

Lets start with the usual disclaimers:

I have no issue with the IPPA and I do not want to be a member of theirs as I feel I can benefit having membership with other organisations elsewhere.


The concept is good but personally I think its more hype than anything with way too many "what if's, who does what?" kind of questions which have to be resolved first. Could this possibly be another way of the IPPA trying to recruit new members??

Lets be honest here, do you really and honestly think a bride & groom (using weddings as the example here) are going to give a rats ass if the photographer holds a piece of paper saying they are "official"?? Of course they aren't as all they are concerned about is the €€€€€€€€€€€ and who isn't.

bernard0368

Frankly I would be suprised if this has any tax issues, it is more likely to be an advertising ploy to try and promote their members. A bit like the financial regulator at the end of every bank ad. More than likely not worth the effort or anyones concern.

nilhg

bernard0368 wrote: »

Frankly I would be suprised if this has any tax issues, it is more likely to be an advertising ploy to try and promote their members. A bit like the financial regulator at the end of every bank ad. More than likely not worth the effort or anyones concern.

What it is, is a very obvious attempt to put the frighteners on people, both folks who do one or two jobs as "nixers" from their day jobs, or their own members who might consider cutting their rates and taking cash under the table instead of putting it through the books.

hcnyla

PCPhoto wrote: »

I didn't realise you could do a second job part-time and not get taxed on first €10-15K ...might look into this.

You can't Paddy. You have to declare ALL income for tax purposes. If you pay tax already at the top rate then every single penny you earn extra as nixers will be taxed at the high rate.

You can declare (I think, not certain of the figure) up to 5K as an add on to your PAYE earnings using a seperate form. If you earn more than 5K then you need to register as a sole trader/company and pay tax this way. I was in this situation last year and rang the tax office about it.

Obviously if you earn less than 5K as a nixer then you would probably be able to write off most of the tax payment on expenses, equipment etc.

PS, you were right about the herald pic sales as well. Loads of calls but no order C'est la vie.

Valentia

AnCatDubh wrote: »

read some of the comments on the blog entry.

That was a very interesting read. Things haven't changed much in all these years since I was a member.

What struck me then and jumps out from those blog posts is the incredibly high opinion of themselves that a number of those photographers have. Then when you go looking at their work, expecting to be blown away, you are even less than underwhelmed. It's quite banal in fact.
They should cop on and realise that photography has become democratised and some of the most creative work is being done by non full timers.

What is it about so called professional photographers that makes them think that they are in the same league as rocket scientists?

Photography is for the people, by the people and of the people. Live with it!