Hi
We have a very small company which has a share premium account. This account has not moved since the first issue of shares over 10 yrs ago.
Filing accounts online with Co House is fine
Using the HMRC software for xbrl filing is not and it is costing £100 plus a year to file CT returns as we have had to pay for translation.
I am tempted to use the HMRC accounts tagging and include the share premium within the reserves figure.
Has anyone got any advice (other than disolve the co - which unfortunately is not an option or write off the share premium which I dont think can be done) about
1) Have they sent accounts to HMRC which have the premium or revaluation reserve "accidentally" included in the overall reserves total
2) Cheap software for 1 user - most of the software is designed for 1 user and a number of companies
Many thanks
Charlotte
Replies (11)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Work around
HMRC's online filing service has a number of flaws.
Therefore work arounds are called for.
In these circumstances I would add the Share Premium Account value to the Issued Shares value in the HMRC template on the Balance Sheet page.
Not strictly correct but absolutely no effect on the tax liability therefore immaterial.
Alternatively spend a £100 or so on buying commercial software or incur a £200 or so accountants fee. There might be a "very cheap" commercial software solution available but I've not seen any positive reports about it - Andica.
QMS Option
We have used Quality Management Software CT filing returns for more complex returns than able to file using HMRC
Have a look to see if useful for you, £26 a go or unlimited £300
No idea
I've no idea why HMRC insist on having information that's totally irrelevant to the tax liability. Why do they need the statutory P+L, for example ?
Full accounts
I've no idea why HMRC insist on having information that's totally irrelevant to the tax liability. Why do they need the statutory P+L, for example ?
The requirement for companies to produce accounts is imposed by the Companies Act not HMRC. It is only reasonable that HMRC get the accounts that companies have already produced. Wouldn't it be odd for HMRC to agree companies' tax liabilities without seeing their accounts? It is no extra work for companies to provide HMRC with accounts that they have had to prepare in any event.
Disagree, I'm afraid
The requirement for companies to produce accounts is imposed by the Companies Act not HMRC. It is only reasonable that HMRC get the accounts that companies have already produced. Wouldn't it be odd for HMRC to agree companies' tax liabilities without seeing their accounts? It is no extra work for companies to provide HMRC with accounts that they have had to prepare in any event.I've no idea why HMRC insist on having information that's totally irrelevant to the tax liability. Why do they need the statutory P+L, for example ?
Well, we must disagree there, John. HMRC need different information to agree the tax liabilities. As for extra work, that depends on your software.
Out of date out of touch
The statutory P&L is irrelevant to the CT filing but nevertheless required by HMRC.
HMRC will still demand the detailed T+P+L account.
Therefore logic suggests HMRC only need the detailed T+P+L account.
Looks like HMRC likes duplication of time and effort.
When using HMRC's iXBRL service there is much duplication of data input involved, which a bit of forethought could be overcome by HMRC's IT partners if they had the ability.
In fact the concept of producing accounts in one software, converting to iXBRL then using another software to produce the CT comps and then submit both really is a silly time-consuming idea.
If HMRC want detailed accounts information, then why don't they just add some supplementary pages to the CT return, so that we can just fill the figures in on a form, like we do with the self-employment pages for sole traders, or on the partnership pages of the Self Assessment tax return? We could still attach the full accounts as a PDF, in case they want to read the notes, but the figures they need could just be entered on a form. I never did understand why we had to adopt such an expensive and time-consuming system as iXBRL, simply in order to be able to submit a tax return.
I totally agree that the present system is far too time-consuming and expensive. For larger practices, which already use accounts production software, it may not be such an issue, but for small practitioners like myself, who produce the accounts without commercial software, the additional cost of the iXBRL software and CT return software is quite considerable - not to mention the cost of all the time it takes to re-input all the information into the iXBRL software.
I have tried using the HMRC iXBRL service, but it does not cater for rental income, so I cannot use it.
Rental income and iXBRL
Unless there's 10% wear and tear allowance then it is possible to include Rental income in CT600 + iXBRL filing HMRC's service - just put in as other income. No tax liability difference, so ignore the stupid "not allowed to" rule.
Andica works
We use Andica for any thing other than basic CT600s, combined with VT accounts software. VT gives us the xbrl format easily and Andica all the supplementary sections. So far no problems with this and the costs are reasonable for a small practice, totalling about £200 for both.
iXBRL logic
HMRC's logic was that iXBRL would save HMRC time and in particular be able to compare results automatically between years and taxpayers of similar categories.
I seem to recall HMRC justifying it's iXBRL approach on the basis that it was a standard business reporting language. Well, "standard" for multi-nationals and PLCs. Absolutely alien in the context of small companies.
Result: extra compliance costs for small companies and hardly any change in compliance costs for multi-nationals (as they were already accustomed to iXBRL).
The accountancy profession don't seem to have picked up on the compliance costs issue, well I don't recall having seen the profession sticking up for small business in this context (ditto. FSB). HMRC were allowed to get away without providing and producing an accurate assessment of compliance costs it seems (vested interests just may have been a factor in this context).