Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Survey reveals iXBRL tagging concerns

by
1st Nov 2011
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

A survey of 200 AccountingWEB members highlighted that while many are getting to grips with the demands of creating iXBRL versions of their final accounts, concerns remain about the costs and accuracy of iXBRL tagging.

Practitioners were more prominent within the survey conducted with the DataTracks iXBRL tagging service and represented 60% of the sample. But the main concern for a third of both accounting practices and business users was accuracy of iXBRL tagging for the accounts they submit electronically to HMRC with their Corporation Tax returns.

The practicalities and economics of iXBRL accounts production and filing come down heavily in favour of letting software take care of the task; this was the case for more than half the survey sample - and four out of five of practitioner respondents. Why so many of them should register concern expressed about tagging accuracy is worrying.

The iXBRL project is still in its “soft landing” phase, but this ambivalence suggests that many accounts production software users do not fully trust their program to output a fully compliant set of iXBRL accounts at the push of a button.

Tagging software was the preferred option for 12.5% of respondents, while HMRC’s free online tool was almost as prevalent, with a 12% share of the sample. Another 3% relied on outsourced services such as survey sponsor DataTracks.

The HMRC software was the preferred choice for nearly a quarter of the business respondents (22.5%), but more than half of this group cited the diversion of resources to the iXBRL project as their main concern

While accuracy was a common concern for both factions, a larger proportion of practitioners (26%) were concerned that clients would be unwilling to bear the cost of iXBRL tagging.

On the positive side, nearly three-quarters of the respondents were paying less than £150 to produce a set of iXBRL tagged accounts. The biggest group within the survey sample (42%) was paying less than £50, followed by 32% for whom it was costing between £50 and £150 per set.

Practices serving many clients tended benefit from economies of scale in iXBRL production compared to individual businesses: 27% of business respondents paid £300 or more per set of accounts, compared to 8% of practitioners. But almost as many practitioners (8) paid more than £450 per set as businesses (11).

Commenting on the survey findings, DataTracks director Will Mathieson said: “Users of accounts production software naturally want to rely on the software, but at the same time know that software cannot always get subjective judgements right.

“The tension between the two results in the observed concerns about accuracy. The solution is likely to be more QA effort and cost.”

He continued: “Software can’t think for you. Some tagging requires judgment, so software alone is not always the best solution.  We see increasing numbers reconsidering a managed tagging solution as they realise the limitations in terms of accuracy/assurance and internal time/effort of a software only solution.”

Last month Richard Mann, of accountancy firm Stone Osmond, won an iPad 2 after taking part in the survey.

Tags:

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By ringi
02nd Nov 2011 17:24

Why not produce the paper account from the iXBRL file?

If the paper accounts that are signed of by the directors were produced using a tool that read the iXBRL file (with no other input other then a format template) then there would be a lot less need to worry about the quality of the iXBRL tagging, as it would be picked up quickly if it was wrong.

Tagging accounts in PDF files and spread sheets just seem the wrong way around to do it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By theprovincialtaxshop
03rd Nov 2011 11:18

iXBRL Tagging

I have been using Keytime accounts production software since iXBRL Tagging was required for accounts submission to HMRC.  Although there have been one or two technical gliches in the software, these have been fixed relatively quickly and I have to say that I am very happy with the software and all our accounts submissions online, with the attached computations, have been successful.

The program is easy to use, once I had got over the initial learning curve and also the inputting of both last year's and this year's figures and I have been able to absorb the additional cost of the software with minimal fee increases for clients.  Having now put in the figures for this and last year, when we come to do next year's accounts, the software will bring forward the previous year's figures, and therefore the time element for accounts production will be reduced.

If anyone is struggliung with iXBRL, then have a look at the keytime software.  It is not overly expensive and it does work.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By david wilks
03rd Nov 2011 11:25

iXBRL tagging

I totally agree with theprovincialtaxshop. Keytime have come up with a very efficient bit of kit which is great. 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By RogerMT
03rd Nov 2011 11:46

VT Software

We are using VT Software for accounts production, and have only had one set of accounts rejected by HMRC, and it turned out to be an inputting error on our part. VT is cheap, and (touch wood) seems to do all the iXBRL work for you.

I am an accountant, not a computer technician so I fail to see why the onus is on the accountant to do the tagging when we pay software companies to do it for us!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DMGbus
03rd Nov 2011 13:03

RIA got the costs wrong

Here's an extract from the RIA re: joint filing / iXBRL...

"  It is assumed the work will be carried out by an accounting professional at a cost to the business of £24 per hour.  

This results in a one-off cost of approximately £6.00 per company. "

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By gbrdbry
09th Nov 2011 09:59

Alternatives - File4

 

It is also worth noting that for companies that produce their accounts in-house using MS Word or Excel there is technology that addresses many of these issues. File4 is software as a service that tags Word and Excel guaranteeing accurate submissions to HMRC and minimising manual input.

It guarantees accuracy because it uses HMRC validation rules, so if it isn’t right it won’t let you proceed. It minimises manual intervention as it has an intelligent engine that ‘learns and remembers’ tagging idiosyncrasies – the more the system is used the less manual input is needed.

 

Note :  Apologies to all, as correctly reminded by Gary, I did not make clear my position. I am indeed Gareth Bradbury, Head of Product Management at UNIT4 Business Software Ltd, and FILE4 is our solution for the corporate market for Word and Excel conversion to iXBRL. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Red Leader:
avatar
By GaryMc
07th Nov 2011 22:32

Forum decorum

gbrdbry wrote:

 

It is also worth noting that for companies that produce their accounts in-house using MS Word or Excel there is technology that addresses many of these issues. File4 is software as a service that tags Word and Excel guaranteeing accurate submissions to HMRC and minimising manual input.

It guarantees accuracy because it uses HMRC validation rules, so if it isn’t right it won’t let you proceed. It minimises manual intervention as it has an intelligent engine that ‘learns and remembers’ tagging idiosyncrasies – the more the system is used the less manual input is needed.

 

You wouldn't happen to be the "Gareth Bradbury, Head of Product Management for UNIT4 Business Software" would you?

 

A bit of 'by the way, I work for...' if you please.

Thanks (0)