Difference between Quantity Surveyors?

Hi Team,

I have purchased an IP in North Brisbane and am about to review Quantity Surveyors to provide me with a depreciation schedule.
Being that this is our first IP, I would like to hear from the forum:

1. Are there major differences between Quantity Surveyors and what should I be on the lookout for?
2. Who have you used and would you recommend them?

Thank you

 

1. Yes. Some are appalling and poor value and offer poor tech support

2. BMT, Washington Brown, Depreciator, DuoTax are some of the better ones

Tip - If someone suggest they are cheaper they may do a desktop / photo job which may be far far less accurate and complete v's a site inspect.

Tip 2 : Until a QS tells you its not worth a report you get a report done.

 

Some will tell you if its not worth doing a report, and to me thats a sign of good honesty. Ie not taking your money just for the sake of it.

Some use their own inspectors vs not having any of their own people on the ground. I think that makes a difference in the end result.

 

Those three names seem to be the best in the industry, but is there one that is generally considered the best that stands out of these three? Is there one that gives a higher depreciation value in their reports?

 

I also don't know the difference. To me I'm just buying a document that the ato accepts to give me more deductions. Therefore my decision comes to finding the cheapest report with the greatest deduction. Qs are also negotiable with their figures, several times I told them the figures are too low because of (reasons) and they revise upwards. Once I paid for more than one report to compare which gave more deductions.

 

Yes, the one which has erroneous information in it.

 

I have only seen three examples of this type of comparison. Excepting mistakes and poor information given to a QS in the first place there is going to be some variation if a property is visited for an onsite assessment. But its not major. Remember a QS report is based on an assessment of the historical cost. A QS who intentionally overstates the values would face professional career ending challenges in time. Its like suggesting a tax agent you know can claim higher deductions. They may face risks of ATO discipline if this is statistically evident and they are checked.

One of the more notable issues these days is older reports. Just because a report shows depreciation is available does not mean its still deductible. I also see new reports and occassionally have to recheck issues and even send the client back to the QS to have issues corrected. This happens a bit. Its not the QS fault. The client tells me one thing and the QS something else. Our process is tuned to assist to detect risks of errors that either under or over claim.

 

The best tax depreciation firm is Napier & Blakeley, they pioneered majority of the legislation that is around today. And any firm with an ex-Napiers employee is worth considering. The likes of Deppro, CBRE Tax, MBM Advisory, Mitchell Brandtman are all the real leaders in this industry. They are all busy depreciating the big end of town and don't need to advertise their services.

 

Just got one done with Depreciator (my third one with them). Great service, instant message chat on the website, followed by a call back the next day to confirm details with 50% partial payment. Surveyor was able to come at the time I was doing the final inspection so it was not irritating for the tenants.

Report received within a couple of days, payment auto deducted from card for remaining 50%. Pleasantly surprised with the capital works deduction

He was very thorough looking at the fire systems and documenting all the common property too.

 

I would consider the claim ""they pioneered majority of the legislation that is around today"" 100% rubbish. The legislation was written and made by Treasury without any industry input. This was back in 1986. At that time many queried how a former asset could be retrospectively assessed for its cost of construction and the ATO granted the concession to professional QS to produce these reports. The 1936 Tax Act was basically rewritten in 1997 to include Div 40 and 43 which were mirrors of the former law. I would suggest that no professional QS would ever stake claim to being the father of QS deductions. Its like a law firm advertising that they alone have capacity to defend certain crimes or indeed invented law.

Example of the embellishment in the claim include depro's own claim that they have approx 12 years experience... This falls well short of the turn of decade let alone 1986. About DEPPRO | Tax Depreciation Schedules - Depreciation Reports - Deppro

Many older QS firms did not establish reputation through tax reports. They did so as professionals in the construction costing, insurance, finance, contract costing and construction estimation process.

Many QS firms offer "retail" tax services where other wont or dont wish to as it is not a core business.