Any issues with IRIS 10.7?

Apart form the SQL 2005 Business tax issue which seems to have been sorted i was wondering if anyone has come accross any other problems with 10.7

We normally wait at least 2 weeks before putting any Iris updates on but because of the annual return situation we can't hang around with this one any longer.

Comments
alan.rolfe's picture

Tax Offices

alan.rolfe | | Permalink

When doing the upgrade there is a global option to change the tax district numbers to single codes for each type of entity (e.g IND for individuals, etc.).  The idea being that HMRC are gradually adopting single addresses for Self Assessment, etc., so we don't need tax district numbers.

While it doesn't matter too much for the individuals as most communications are electronic (e.g. Return submission), it totally mucks it up for the employers as the district number is still required for them, as it appears on the Employment pages, etc.

My recommendation is NOT to do the global update for these codes, but as it is presented during the update on the server you may want to make sure your IT staff are aware and don't just happily press OK when doing the update!

 

Paul Scholes's picture

Known issues

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Hi - think it's best to keep an eye on their Known Issues page.

In the past I too have held back but there's quite a bit of new stuff in 10.7 so I jumped in (ditto 10.6 and no problems there).

I have a weird tax comp issue where the "profit per accounts" isn't, but think it might only happen with intangible amortisation.  They were back to me very quickly on this and I'm expecting a resolution today.

Deferred tax & Companies House filing

tkingston | | Permalink

I have encountered a problem with filing accounts at Companies House since the update.  I have a company with a deferred tax asset in account 932.  I got a validation error saying that the balance sheet didn't balance, and was advised to transfer the balance to an account between 940 & 950 to file the abbreviated accounts at Companies House, and then reverse the entry for the CT600 filing and printing final accounts.  However this did not work, and I still got the validation error.  The difference on the balance sheet is also related to the deferred tax figure in the P & L account, and there was no work-round suggested.  I have been advised by Iris to file on paper, and have not been given any idea of when this will be fixed.  I have a second company with the same circumstances and I am not risking an electronic filing.  Very inconvenient as I have relied on this feature working, and clients have got used to the additional time available to meet the filing deadline. And, yes I know they shouldn't cut it so fine, but some do!

I was also a victim of the SQL 2005 issue, so overall I am very disappointed with the 10.7 update, especially as at Iris World they said they had got on top of these quality problems.

Euan MacLennan's picture

Goodwill/Intangibles amortisation and disposal

Euan MacLennan | | Permalink

There is a major bug with business tax computations in which goodwill/intangibles are amortised or disposed of.  In our case, the gain on disposal of goodwill was doubled and also, added to the true profit per financial statements, so the net taxable amount and tax calculation ended up correct, but the details were nonsense.

The solution set out in KB10175 requires you to save the enhanced computation to a location, use the iXBRL Editor to amend the figures in the computation, re-save it and then, when preparing the electronic tax return, call up your amended computation from its location.  IRIS says that this is a critical issue which will be fixed by v.10.7.1 to be released sometime in November, but if you have to file in October, you have no alternative but to amend the computation in the iXBRL editor.

It is a bit like the bad old days when the standard work around for Accounts Production report problems was to extract to Word and amend it there.

Euan MacLennan's picture

Tax Offices

Euan MacLennan | | Permalink

Interesting point by Alan.

We did the 10.7.0 upgrade (twice, as we are on SQL Server 2005) and opted to update the Tax Offices, which seemed to be the obvious default.  I now see that on the Employment pages, the PAYE reference appears as EMP/AB12345.  Has anyone attempted to file a personal tax return with EMP as the district?  Was it accepted?

Paul Scholes's picture

Computational adjustments

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Have done the workaround edit per KB1075, mentioned by Euan, and it's OK however, as luck would have it I also have 4 items of expenditure added back in the same comps as "not wholly & exclusively" for the trade and these have not been tagged, neither can I select them for tagging in the iXBRL editor.

Suggest people view the tagging in comps (via the editor) to make sure all add backs etc are automatically tagged.

alan.rolfe's picture

Tax Offices

alan.rolfe | | Permalink

It seems unlikely that a Return with an employer reference of, say, EMP/AB12345  will be rejected, as various work-arounds in the past where the district number was not known (such as using a full stop!) did not result in an internet submission rejection.

My concern is that it may affect the "autocoding" process (will HMRC think the client has 2 employments?) and might cause the client to query the entry.

Old Greying Accountant's picture

I think your problem ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

tkingston wrote:

I have encountered a problem with filing accounts at Companies House since the update.  I have a company with a deferred tax asset in account 932.  I got a validation error saying that the balance sheet didn't balance, and was advised to transfer the balance to an account between 940 & 950 to file the abbreviated accounts at Companies House, and then reverse the entry for the CT600 filing and printing final accounts.  However this did not work, and I still got the validation error. 

... is the wrong range!

You need to post in the range 942 -950., just worked for me - phew!!

10.7.1

Oppco | | Permalink

Is anyone running two IRIS suites on the same server? We are, and our engineers have failed 5 times with the upgrade. It is now with the IRIS development programmers (their most senior people)

Would a solution be to move onto the IRIS 'cloud'?  Has anyone experienced problems with the 'cloud', for example slow running?

 

Old Greying Accountant's picture

If you have two network suites ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... why not have separate servers?

Paul Scholes's picture

Iris in the Cloud

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Hi - yes we've been running Iris (and everything else) in the Cloud for 8 months and it works really well.  We swapped over as our ancient server and PCs were showing signs of needing a rest and so the speed issue is quite the reverse, ie everything is a lot faster.  I now login from home, car, office and train and would never return to being tied down to my own server, power supply and all the other "stuff" needed to keep it going.

We looked at Iris Hosting but (at the time) is was far too expensive compared to Hosted Desktop UK, who host several other Iris users, Iris also required a 3 year agreement compared to HDT's 3 months.  Obviously check out Iris but I have no hesitation is saying that HDT have been extraordinary in their level of service and support.

two network suites

Oppco | | Permalink

Regrettably, I am of the IT illiterate generation. I do know we have two servers already, but only our engineers understand the configuration. I'll talk to them about your suggestion, and thanks for your time and help

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments
Group: IRIS Accountancy Practice software discussion group
An independent forum for IRIS users to share advice, ideas and gripes