Share this content
7

How heinous a crime would this backdating be?

Invoice should have been raised in March, only now being raised

Didn't find your answer?

A client received a professional fees invoice of which a substantial proportion should have been recharged to another entity (same group, no VAT group registration) by 31 March (Tax point is pre 31 March). For reasons mainly connected to Covid-19, this did not happen and the invoice is only now being raised. 31 March is also the year end as well as the VAT quarter end. It does not relate to a continuous supply of services.

It would make the accounting and VAT return preparation simpler if the invoice was dated March.  Given the tax points are all pre year end and, if the invoice was dated April, the income would be treated as accrued income in the year end accounts, there is no effect on the reported results, on CT nor on VAT. But it is backdating.

Thoughts?

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By paul.benny
30th Apr 2020 15:04

I'd have no problem with what you suggest.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Truthsayer
30th Apr 2020 15:16

That sounds fine. Do it.

Thanks (1)
Caroline
By accountantccole
30th Apr 2020 15:42

Is it back dating or is it putting paperwork in place when it should have happened?
I'd do it

Thanks (2)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
30th Apr 2020 15:59

Thank you all. I am over thinking this. It has been a long couple of weeks.

Thanks (1)
Lone Wolf
By Lone_Wolf
30th Apr 2020 16:28

Some physicists would argue that all time happens at once: past, present and future.

If such a theory is correct, then it doesn't seem possible to backdate a document.

I'd say you'll be fine. If not, then bamboozle the inspector with physics.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Lone_Wolf:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Apr 2020 18:28

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Some physicists would argue that all time happens at once: past, present and future.

What do the others say, though ?

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By Duggimon
30th Apr 2020 19:13

Some physicists would argue that "some physicists" is the same thing as "all physicists" and also "no physicists". To be honest we'd be better not involving them at all.

Thanks (0)
Share this content

Related posts