Do you file accs to Co House and HMRC 'jointly'?

Do you file accs to Co House and HMRC 'jointly'?

Didn't find your answer?

I am compiling a response on behalf of members to proposals contained in the BIS consultation document on Company Filing Requirements - the document states that the procedure for 'joint' filing of accounts to both Co House and HMRC has been low.

I find this surprising as it easy to do.

I know there are different dates for filing but the figures are the same- arent they? So why is the 'take up low'

Do you submit clients accounts together? and if not could you advise me why not so I can insert a comment in the reply.

Here is the relevant bit of text from the document...

We intend to improve our systems, and guidance, to facilitate the filing of accounts to HMRC and CH on a single date for those companies that wish to do so. We will not, at this stage, change the dates for filing with HMRC and CH.
We would welcome views on the impact on companies and on the transparency of the register of aligning filing dates for accounts at both HMRC and CH.

Thank you

Jennifer Adams

Associate Editor

Replies (22)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
22nd Nov 2013 10:59

Nope

I file the accounts to HMRC through BTC with the tax return and to Co House through VT. Takes me a miniscule amount of time (did I mention how much I love BTC & VT?).

Thanks (4)
avatar
By techpro
22nd Nov 2013 11:03

up to the individual

there is a case of  " well, I'm having to file my CT600 anyway.....so why not TICK a box and have my Companies House submittal done alongwith "....I certainly appreciate the option.....and use the facility all the time......give it a try and find out if it's for you

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
22nd Nov 2013 11:07

Figures aren't the same. 

Figures aren't the same. 

The accounts for Companies House may be abbreviated, but for HMRC the full accounts are required.

The full accounts for HMRC may include a detailed profit and loss account, but the accounts for Companies House, even if they are not abbreviated, must never include such a thing.

Deadlines are also different.

9 months for Companies House - less for PLCs.  !2 months for HMRC - even for PLCs.  There may simply be a straightforward timing issue.  Accounts are completed within 9 months and must be submitted to Companies House, but tax return is not ready so HMRC submission has to wait.

Thanks (6)
Man of Kent
By Kent accountant
22nd Nov 2013 11:22

John's answer

says it all.

Enough said*

 

 

 

 

* - same as Flash - I use BTC and VT

Thanks (1)
Jennifer Adams
By Jennifer Adams
22nd Nov 2013 11:23

Yes, I know...

I should have put the text : 'the figures are the same arent they?' in quotes as this was something said to me by CH a few days ago when I tried to explain.

Yes, I know the dates and amounts are different. I would submit that CH only understand the bigger companies !

Thank you for your responses. I'll be back if I find anything else I need help with.

BIS want much more done by email - I have taken on board Blairs' 'rant' as below and will include something along the lines of - emails are fine so long as the logistics are appreciated etc etc - see here...

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/group-thread/emails-hmrc-useless

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Cloudcounter
22nd Nov 2013 11:25

Different software

We don't use the HMRC software (for anything, let alone CT).  Perhaps it's improved but when I looked it was clunky and horrible.  In any event, why would I want to key figures into the HMRC software when the accounts program produces an ixbrl file to attach to the tax return?

We use different software providers for accounts and for Corporation Tax, so there's no facility to file both at the same time.  I suspect that's the case for many accountants.

Thanks (2)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By girlofwight
22nd Nov 2013 11:57

Inertia has got better of us. Our accounts production software, compac, let's us produce both ibxrl full and abbreviated accounts, and file the ch ones at press of a button, just we haven't got around to rolling it out. We still send abbreviated in PDF to clients and ask them print, sign, post.

It won't be a big deal for us to produce ixbrl abbreviateds and file them after client approval, however for reasons outlined above - disclosure - joint filing won't happen.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By The Innkeeper
22nd Nov 2013 11:55

@cloudcounter

likewise

Thanks (0)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
22nd Nov 2013 12:26

.

As above, different data is required for each. 

And quite often you don't want to file both at the same time.

CT600 with directors loans for example will go in just before the deadline so you know what has been repaid, but the accounts might have gone in 8 months earlier on CH for credit score purposes. 

For a new co. there might be different periods of account for CH and HMRC

For a closing company you probably wont file the final set with CH in any case

Heaps of reason why joint makes little sense as an automatic process. 

Thanks (1)
By gerrysims
22nd Nov 2013 13:08

problems

I have recently had an enquiry from a potential client who filed jointly before the CT600 was prepared. On completing his CT600 he had a claim which required submission of a full return so asked us to file for him as he couldn't use the HMRC software.

We did so but he had no iXBRL accounts to attach. We tried to file a new return with a note but that didn't work then tried to file as an amended return, saying accounts already filed but that didn't work as it wasn't an amendment. We had no choice in the end but to input his accounts data into our software to produce iXBRL accounts to attach.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By DMGbus
22nd Nov 2013 13:55

Joint filing service - NO

I never have used the joint filing service since I have no confidence in correct (ie. Abbreviated) accounts reaching Companies House, I have concerns that full accounts might get filed or unnecessary breach of confidentiality extra notes being added into the Abbreviated Accounts.  No confidence in HMRC software.

This is based on my experience of using the HMRC online filing .pdf CT600 - a software product full of bugs and anomalies in creating a lot of extra time to be expended.  HMRC use an interactive .pdf with it being necessary to read (at last count) 31 pages of instructions as to how to amend security settings in Adobe.  In one instance  a couple of years ago the instructions referred to a scroll down menu that was inaccessible.

In contrast the standalone online filing at Companies House using the CH online .pdf is ever so easy and you can ensure that proper Abbreviated Accounts are filed online.

The other thing to remember is that HMRC and it's software partners have a bad track record - as an example earlier this week an update for PAYE basics RTI software caused a no go situation for a client, so it was necessary for me to manually compute the wages and extract two files from the client's computer and eMail them to HMRC to seek an HMRC fix - all as a result of an untested (or not properly tested) update from HMRC's IT partners.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Duhamel
22nd Nov 2013 13:56

Staff

Where I work the accounts department files with Co House and the tax dept files with HMRC. Therefore, they are never filed together.

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
22nd Nov 2013 13:57

Ignorance, Mistrust & Inertia

Ignorance

I don't know how "joint" filing works.  Do you prepare both full and abbreviated accounts in your software or just full accounts with the system automatically abbreviating them and filing the abbreviated accounts at Companies House?  How do you send the CT return and computations?  I don't know how to do it with the software (IRIS) we use.

Mistrust

If "joint" filing involves the system automatically abbreviating the accounts for Companies House, I would not trust it not to send full accounts plus detailed P&L to Companies House.

Inertia

With our software, you prepare accounts in the Accounts Production module and then, run different reports to produce the full and abbreviated accounts, which are saved respectively for submission with the CT return prepared in the Business Tax module and for submission to Companies House.  When the accounts have been approved by the client, it is just a couple of mouse clicks in each of the AP and BT modules to do the filing.  Our present system works superbly.  It ain't broke, so why should I fix it?

Of all the areas where the Government could do some joined-up thinking, this has to be one of the least likely with its disparate filing requirements.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By adam.arca
22nd Nov 2013 14:00

*

I'd go along with all the above negative comments. Bottom line is that joint filing has no push (it solves a problem which barely exists) and next to no pull (there's nothing in it for us).

Girlofwight also allued to an issue which (as usual) clearly hasn't been considered by the civil servants: the vast majority of abbs are filed by the clients themselves rather than by the accountants so how exactly is a joint filing supposed to work in that scenario?

Thanks (2)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
22nd Nov 2013 14:05

Make system fit for purpose first

I have had cause to use the HMRC online filing tool twice, and it was enormously difficult. Before I could even start I had to change a bunch of security settings, which is enough to put people off even starting. Filling it out would not be easy for the lay-man, and I got warnings every few pages when there was some problem with auto-save. Never managed to get to the bottom of that, and was only able to progress by ignoring them and hoping they weren't important.

So I won't use the joint filing system until it is either integrated into the programs I already use, or the website version ceases to be such a pain to use.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By GW
22nd Nov 2013 14:08

VT and BTC

Using Vt to prepare the accounts and ixbrl files then using BTC to deal with the CT600 and Companies House is significantly quicker and easier than using the joint filing facility, this also has the advantage that the accounts can go to Companies House and the data can then be held in BTC before filing the CT600 this is particularly useful when the client wants the accounts available at Companies House but wants to wait so loans can be repaid and s.455 issues can be dealt with.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Moonbeam:
By Canary Boy
22nd Nov 2013 16:31

That works

GW wrote:

Using Vt to prepare the accounts and ixbrl files then using BTC to deal with the CT600 and Companies House is significantly quicker and easier than using the joint filing facility, this also has the advantage that the accounts can go to Companies House and the data can then be held in BTC before filing the CT600 this is particularly useful when the client wants the accounts available at Companies House but wants to wait so loans can be repaid and s.455 issues can be dealt with.

for us as well :¬)

Thanks (0)
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
22nd Nov 2013 15:20

Euan's posting ...
Sets out exactly how I feel about joint filing. I've got nothing to add to it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Briar
22nd Nov 2013 16:04

We just don't trust HMRC to get it right

As I see it, the accounts would be filed with HMRC and then they would send them on to CH. Along with everybody else, I just don't trust HMRC to get it right and would rather have control of what I file with CH. That's the reason why the take up of joint filing has been so low.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
22nd Nov 2013 16:51

Me, too

VT for abbreviated accounts to Co.Hse., BTC for HMRC. It works great and no problems to date. :)

Thanks (0)
Image is of a pin up style woman in a red dress with some of her skirt caught in the filing cabinet. She looks surprised.
By Monsoon
22nd Nov 2013 17:00

What everyone else said.

File to CoHo direct through VT.

File totally different info to HMRC through Ftax.

Wouldn't trust HMRC's own software to send abbrv to CoHo. And it takes 2 seconds to do that anyway in VT.

Bottom line: 3rd party software is superior.

 

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
22nd Nov 2013 17:20

Jennifer

I think that the unanimous response of the members is as clear as crystal!

Thanks (0)