Share this content

CT iXBRL files

CT iXBRL files

Since March we have sent in the HTML file created by manually tagging our word.doc accounts using Sage's XBRL software.

We have used the sample tagged accounts provided by Sage to decide what items we should tag.

This file goes with the CT comps and CT600 which our Sage CT software creates automatically.

Once we have grappled our way through the various initial rejections and the filing is accepted, in each case we have received appropriate ackowledgements from HMRC.   No other comments from HMRC have come our way. 

It strikes me that the accounts information sent is a lot less that what was previously being sent as a full set of (pdf) accounts

For instance, none of the amounts detailed on the full profit and loss acounts are included.

I just wondered what other members experience was, do they include a pdf set as well for instance? 

Should I care in fact?

Thanks for any comments

David Harrison


Please login or register to join the discussion.

08th Sep 2011 08:44

But they still see the full accounts?!

Just because the detailed P & L account isn't tagged doesn't mean they can't see it .... the information simply isn't collected electronically.

Thanks (0)
08th Sep 2011 09:32

The detailed p/l has been causing lots of confusion


Thanks (3)
08th Sep 2011 11:36

Do they see the full accounts?

Using the HMRC website to prepare and file abbreviated accounts at Companies House and the CT600 does not involve inputting the detailed P&L A/c - only selected figures from it.

Thanks (0)
08th Sep 2011 11:44

Detailed P & L

It is confusing to say the least, I think VT's summary above covers it quite nicely. From our point of view we do not include a detailed p & l account at all and have not (as yet) had any come back from any of our users from HMRC.



Neil Douglas

Eureka Software

Thanks (0)
08th Sep 2011 15:58

I don't understand VT's comments

"However, a detailed profit and loss account virtually never serves this purpose. For instance, it is simply not possible to calculate the amount of entertaining expenses from a company’s annual accounts. The information is not there, just the total of administration expenses."

It is the statutory P&L which combines all the overhead expenses into one total for "Administrative Expenses".  The detailed P&L lists the overhead expenses individually and so, will always serve the purpose of showing a figure for entertainment.


"The strict rules say that the annual accounts and computations/workings must submitted in iXBRL format and everything else must be submitted as a pdf."

Where is this rule set out?  It obviously is not strict.  As Steve H pointed out, an untagged iXBRL detailed P&L is capable of being printed in the same way as a .pdf file, so what is the problem?



Thanks (0)
to Monsoon
09th Sep 2011 10:36

To Euan

VT's web site states:

There is requirement to include with a corporation tax return details of how numbers in the tax computation are calculated from the annual accounts (see However, a detailed profit and loss account virtually never serves this purpose. For instance, it is simply not possible to calculate the amount of entertaining expenses from a company’s annual accounts. The information is not there, just the total of administration expenses.

The detailed profit and loss account is not legally part of the annual (statutory) accounts. The argument is that it is not possible to calculate the amount of something like entertaining expenses from the annual accounts as the number is not reported there. Hence HMRC cannot use the rule to demand a detailed profit and loss account as part of the CT return.

The rule that everything else must be a pdf can be found at paragraph 6(i) at I reproduce it below (my bold):

Other information, accounts, statements, reports, claims or correspondence included as part of the return must be sent as Portable Document Format (PDF) files.

Thanks (0)
09th Sep 2011 08:53

Euan - you have hit on the whole reason .....

... that iXBRL is such a joke.

Amongst the reasons why iXBRL was touted as being such a move forward was that it would allow HMRC to save significant cost by computerising its risk analysis. But when you examine the scheme that is utter tosh.

I think we would all agree that the areas where automated risk analysis would be most useful come from the detailed P&L. Why is the GP% down by 12%? Why are repairs three times what they were last year? Why is there a figure for entertainment which is not added back in the CT comp? etc etc etc

However, even when the full taxonomy becomes compulsory in 2013 there will be no obligation to submit a tagged detailed P&L. By the simple expedient of not including the detailed P&L in the iXBRL accounts and submitting a pdf version instead (if at all) you get around providing all of this data in a form which HMRC can interrogate electronically..

How stupid is that from HMRC's point of view? Why did they not either (a) do something along the lines of what they did with self assessment - require the detailed P&L to be summarised into a number of predetermined boxes or (b) legislate to require a tagged detailed P&L to be submitted?

So, in effect, iXBRL takes HMRC virtually nowhere in improiving their risk profiling. It just saves them money in handling the submission of CT returns and accounts. A worthwhile objective in itself, but is all the hassle everyone has had to go through with iXBRL really justified for that alone?

Thanks (0)
09th Sep 2011 11:31

Well I haven't sent any pdfs of the detailed P&L since 1 April

...just the iXBRL tagged statutory accounts. I have tried to attach pdfs documents in addition to iXBRL acs & comps, but these were rejected. So where is the logic in that "everything else" must be filed by pdf?

HMRC have access to even less information than they ever did under pdf attachments and will continue to do so even when full taxonomy tagging is introduced in 2013. Just wait for the snowstorm of letters and enquiries requesting detailed P&Ls. What a backward step it was. Again HMRC have not thought through what they are trying to do with online services.

Can't wait for payroll RTI - potentially a nightmare in the making.......

Thanks (0)
09th Sep 2011 11:40

Sage are aware of this, as when I called them they advised that there's an updated company master dated 1 April 2010 for Sage Accounts Production which, among other things, updates the iXBRL wizard so that it includes the detailed P&L.  

That said, for CT600 submissions that I made prior to finding this out, I didn't get any rejections.  To my mind though it just heads off any inspectors who expect to see a detailed P&L, albeit that it does not seem to form part of the minimum tagging.



Thanks (1)
12th Sep 2011 12:51


My software does not show all the expenses under the detailed P&L. It categorises them into sections and then provides the breakdown in the Notes. I assume that the VT version is the same

I must confess it didn't seem very logical to me as I was used to seeing full details in the Detailed version


Thanks (0)
12th Sep 2011 19:55

This is HMRC's guidance and still none the wiser
Should a detailed profit and loss account be included with the accounts or computations iXBRL file?
The statutory accounts a company must produce for its members do not include what is often referred to as a 'detailed profit and loss account'. However, some companies choose to include this as part of the accounts they submit with their Company Tax Return. Others choose to include a detailed profit and loss account as part of their computations. Data within the detailed profit and loss account must be XBRL tagged if a corresponding tag is included within the minimum tagging list for the appropriate taxonomy.
Read more about tagging a detailed profit and loss account (PDF 131K)

Thanks (0)
13th Sep 2011 14:16

Detailed P & L

I just thought I would check with the HMRC SDS team the latest position on this subject part of their response is below. Think basically for now its a case of wait and see.

"Although HMRC encourages the inclusion of detailed P&Ls in accounts as they are useful they are not mandatory and there are currently no plans that I know of to make them so" """


Neil Douglas

Eureka Software



Thanks (0)
13th Sep 2011 15:32

iXBRL tax v accounts inconsistencies

Does anyone have experience of, despite using HMRC approved software, inconsistencies between (manually) tagged data in the tax comp and accounts?

If so, is there any consequences? 

Thanks (0)
By DMGbus
13th Sep 2011 18:19

HMRC software

By using HMRC's online .pdf software if you copy the right figures from the accounts there will be NO inconsistencies between filed figures & accounts.


Today, using Sage Accounts iXBRL it was discovered that two serious cosmetic errors were present by default in the iXBRL accounts and needed manual edting : an unnecessary change of accounting policies note accompanied by a reference in another note to something allegedly happening 112 years ago (yes, 1899).  Time-consuming manual editing solved these problems.  Additionally the Sage accounts have been including an incorrect reference to "Section 15" in the directors statement on the Balance Sheet - again time consuming manual override editing required.

With regard to tax computations the rather overly complex Sage CT software does not compute small pool write off automatically - there's a secret box (ie. learn about it by trial and error / word of mouth) that has to be ticked to achieve this claim.


My personal preference based on the above rather typical experiences with Sage software is to prefer to use HMRC's product and "know it's right" - still hassle but I personally find that HMRC's software is less hassle than Sage's software products.   Problem is that HMRC's software has limitations and not all companies qualify to use the HMRC software.



Thanks (0)
14th Sep 2011 14:11


Re the point above about inconsistencies, my understanding is the only item that is shared between the CT and the accounts is the company number. If you get an error stating an item doesnt agree in the two, its nearly always the company number differing i.e. having a zero in front in one place and not the other.

Thanks (0)
15th Sep 2011 10:07

I would agree with Neil Douglas

I have found also, so far, that the only inconsistencies have been with company numbers exactly as he describes. Otherwise, iXBRL has been a breeze.

Thanks (0)
22nd Sep 2011 19:28

@DMGBus - response from Sage Product Manager

Hi there

I am Jon Martingale, Product Manager at Sage Accountants' Division for Sage's accounts production software.

If you would like to discuss your software errors with one of our Customer Services people who are trained to help you then please do call us on 0845 111 1111.

Alternatively, if you want to discuss any issue with me personally then please email your contact details to [email protected] in the first instance. I will ensure that your message is forwarded to me and I will arrange a suitable time to speak to you.



Thanks (0)
Share this content