Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
Transparent company details
iStock_dinn_transparent_company_details

Small companies will have to file P&L accounts

by

Companies House reforms will help combat economic crime, but micro and small companies lose options for abridged or filleted accounts and will have to report profit and loss (P&L) statements.

15th Mar 2022
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a humanitarian disaster, but it also reminds us of the potential impact of sanctions, anti-money laundering regulations and the role of Companies House. We are seeing growing imposition of sanctions on Russia itself but also on Russian oligarchs, wherever they and their assets live. 

If we are to successfully impose sanctions and identify suspicious activity that may be related to kleptocrats, organised crime gangs and other money launderers, we need to know what assets are held in which companies and who owns those companies. The government is therefore accelerating the planned changes to Companies House, having now issued its corporate transparency and register reform whitepaper with the detailed proposals, accompanied by a draft economic crime Bill.

The impact of these proposed changes on those who are not money launderers – but just law-abiding business people with registered companies, together with their accountants – is potentially significant. 

To implement these changes Companies House aims to become a fully digital organisation. To increase transparency in annual filings there will no longer be options for abridged or filleted accounts for micro and small companies, removing some of the privacy previously enjoyed by these entities.

Digitisation, powers and identity verification

It is incredibly simple to set up a new company in the UK and there is no requirement to verify the directors’ identities. It is also incredibly simple to file almost anything, including micro-entity accounts, whether entitled to do so or not. In order to identify suspicious activity we need to know more about these companies. 

Because Companies House aims to become fully digital, directors or their agents will have to file digitally tagged accounts, using iXBRL. Once information is tagged it can be easily searched and cross-referencing with data held by HMRC.

The registrar will have greater powers that will help in the fight against economic crime. Their role will be to promote and maintain the integrity of the register and they will have new powers to query information and share data with other authorities. The registrar can also apply fines when company directors or secretaries fail to meet their responsibilities and to remove incorrect information from the register. 

If you are setting up a company or making filings, you will have to have a verified identity with Companies House (no more Donald Ducks listed as directors then!). There will also be restrictions on the use of corporate directors and officers, to maintain a direct link to natural persons. 

Transparency in annual filings

Perhaps the most noticeable changes proposed for small and micro-entities (though not yet in a draft bill) will be the increased transparency required in annual filings. Evidence has suggested that data from micro-entity filing is of little value as it does not contain sufficient information to give a true and fair view of the financial position of the company. This fact also means that micro-entity filing options are attractive to fraudsters. 

There is also complexity in the filing options, as many of you will fully appreciate, so the government will simplify the filing regime. There will be filing options for micro and small companies, but the options for abridged or “filleted” accounts will be removed.

Abridged and ‘filleted’ accounts

Where all the shareholders agree, small companies can currently take advantage of the ability to abridge their accounts. This reduces the detail in the accounts that both shareholders and Companies House receive, compared to the basic small company provisions. The option for abridged accounts will now be scrapped.

Current requirements permit a small entity (including a micro-entity) to omit the profit and loss account and related notes, together with the directors’ report, when filing at Companies House. Removing this filleting option means that all companies will have to file a profit and loss account as well as a balance sheet and small companies will have to file their directors’ report. Micro-entities will retain an exemption from the requirement to prepare or file a directors’ report, however. 

Simplicity vs privacy

So, a win for simplicity, as the accounts to be filed will be exactly those that have been prepared for shareholders. It is also a win for companies that need credit, as under the current regime credit rating agencies can rarely gather sufficient information from Companies House to form an opinion on a small or micro-entity’s credit worthiness. The downside for many, is the loss of privacy due to the publicly filed profit and loss accounts, which will become another price of limited liability.

Economic crime

Restrictions on corporate directors, increased transparency of information, verification of identity and information sharing powers will give Companies House a much greater role in economic crime prevention and detection. Some of that will be around tax fraud, but much might be in relation to foreign “dirty” money and the laundering of the proceeds of organised crime. 

Results of the reform

These reforms are wide-ranging and we have only touched the surface, but when enacted they will have a significant impact on the publicly available information about a company’s performance, something many small business owners may find uncomfortable. However, the increased ability to tackle fraud and money laundering will benefit the economy as a whole and protect directors who are now vulnerable to identity theft. 

The speed of implementation will vary, with economic crime issues likely to be rushed through given the current global situation, but with changes to the accounts taking longer. It is probably a good idea to start mentioning to clients the impending changes, so it isn’t such a shock when they finally arrive.

Replies (109)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

LL
By RickyRoark
15th Mar 2022 15:46

"In order to identify suspicious activity we need to know more about these companies."

There is no 'we' here. Whenever people say "we need" in a political claim - they mean "I want".

___

"The registrar will have greater powers that will help in the fight against economic crime"

More power to a Government entity as the solution to a problem. Who'd have thought?

Thanks (15)
Replying to RickyRoark:
Should Be Working ... not playing with the car
By should_be_working
16th Mar 2022 09:42

RickyRoark wrote:

"In order to identify suspicious activity we need to know more about these companies."

There is no 'we' here. Whenever people say "we need" in a political claim - they mean "I want".

Quite. "Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner."

Thanks (7)
Replying to RickyRoark:
avatar
By philaccountant
16th Mar 2022 10:07

Tend to agree. Enforce the AML laws properly, globally and start with the big boys at the top.

A small fish at the bottom spends countless wasted hours on overly zealous AML compliance, whilst having never had a single Rouble come through our doors. Yet very prestigious law and accountancy firms in 'the City' spent the last two decades laundering the proceeds of Kremlin crimes - and were very well rewarded for it.

Thanks (25)
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
15th Mar 2022 16:09

agree, the info you get on Comp House at the moment is little or no use to anyone, a step in the right direction. I wish they had gone further and said that only a registered accountant will be able to file but thats just me!

Thanks (15)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
15th Mar 2022 16:31

Nothing like a closed shop, Comrade Winnie.

Catch with the registered accountants is they have to date done more harm to UK business than the unregistered ones, following the evidence all accountants ought to be unregistered.

Thanks (26)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Calculatorboy
15th Mar 2022 19:29

Completely unsubstantiated statements , its about consumer protection, compulsory pi, something the cowboys don't like , I've seen some horror stories during my time ..

Thanks (3)
Replying to Calculatorboy:
avatar
By Agutter Accounts
16th Mar 2022 09:52

Yes, there are cowboys out there but what is meant by "unregistered"?

Some of the worst accounting blunders I have come across in 11 years as a freelancer have been committed by firms with people on the masthead with oodles of letters after their name.

The professions can be a bit of a self-righteous closed shop jealous of their privileges. Some firms charge outrageous fees that effectively deprive those who need professional advice from getting that at a reasonable price.

Thanks (14)
Replying to Calculatorboy:
By Duggimon
16th Mar 2022 10:07

Calculatorboy wrote:

Completely unsubstantiated statements , its about consumer protection, compulsory pi, something the cowboys don't like , I've seen some horror stories during my time ..

The biggest harm to UK business perpetrated by accountants has been done and is being done by the Big Four who manage to entirely dwarf the impact a million incompetent cowboys could do to the UK. I think it's an entirely fair comment.

Thanks (14)
Replying to Calculatorboy:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Mar 2022 11:45

No- all the unregistered have certainly not done as much damage as the big 4 and others re some of their audits, one Carillion is worth what?

Thanks (3)
Replying to Calculatorboy:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Mar 2022 12:01

Have you ever taken over a client from one of the larger firms?

You may find that attention to detail sometimes does not figure, write offs to tidy balances can arise (the wonderful thing about materiality, and materiality is a wonderful thing,...........) rather than ticking through to find the errors.

They are often driven by budgets, staff just have to get through the work in the hours granted and rarely will the same party deal with the work year after year.

We have also been audited by a larger firm but I had myself previously audited my employer, in my experience they cut testing to the bone, no doubt driven by budgets, how do I know, well they asked me for all documents so I saw the scope of their work.

I reiterate, taken to logical conclusion, Andersons, KPMG , Grant Thornton, the CA firms who peddled all these tax schemes to their clients for their creators, those that are registered have inflicted far more and deeper damage than the small fry who fail to register.

Thanks (6)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
16th Mar 2022 06:42

DJKL wrote:

Nothing like a closed shop, Comrade Winnie.

Catch with the registered accountants is they have to date done more harm to UK business than the unregistered ones, following the evidence all accountants ought to be unregistered.

Don't really understand what you mean by accountants being unregistered, but perhaps I should not have used the word registered in the first place with no further clarification of what I meant.

My point was that if you want to improve the quality of information filed, the best way to do that would be to insist that only those qualified to do so are allowed to do the filing. That, by the way has nothing to do with belonging to a PB or not but a good place to start would be with those that are registered for MLR purposes.

You only have to read one or two questions from DIYers on here to understand how shockingly unqualified to prepare accounts and tax returns some Company Directors are.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
avatar
By FD-HBC
16th Mar 2022 09:44

"You only have to read one or two questions from DIYers on here to understand how shockingly unqualified to prepare accounts and tax returns some Company Directors are."

The same could be said for the likes of KPMG, PwC, Grant Thornton

Thanks (6)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
By turchyna582
16th Mar 2022 10:32

Wrong approach.
1. It needs the removal of Corporate entities from holding 'office'.
2. Better identification vetting of Officers
3. It is the Preparation and Content of the information to be filed that needs 'qualified' people - the actual filing (i.e. following a prescribed number of keyboard operations) can be done by the vast majority of IT savvy 'Millenials and Zoomers'. Indeed, both CRO and HMRC have asolutely no idea who is operating the keyboard i.e. doing the filing is simply being the 'postman'.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
avatar
By Ash Business Consultants
16th Mar 2022 16:21

All that Oligarch money is being washed by the most respected, big name accountancy and law firms in the city who are making fat chucks of cash for doing so.

It was like that other article a few weeks ago about HMRC looking into the "quality of service" offered by non affiliated agents. Again yet every week without fail another one of the big firms is being caught in a scandal and being fined\taken to court for some form of malfeasance, dodgy tax avoidance scam etc etc.

Being "registered" is just a smokescreen to fool the masses that they can have faith in the system. When the reality is it's just a way of gatekeeping the industry and increase the fees charged.

As to your point about Company Directors being unqualified to file their company accounts, yes most of them are however they currently are the ones that are responsible for the accuracy of those filings not you as an accountant. If you wish to change it so that only "qualified accountants" are allowed to file those reports because Directors are "unqualified" to do so, surely therefore the responsibility for the accuracy of those accounts needs to transfer 100% to the filing accountant, after all if Directors are not qualified to file them they are also surely not qualified to understand what you are filing on their behalf. Are you prepared to take that on that responsibility and associated risk?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ash Business Consultants:
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
16th Mar 2022 16:43

Ash Business Consultants wrote:
<

As to your point about Company Directors being unqualified to file their company accounts, yes most of them are however they currently are the ones that are responsible for the accuracy of those filings not you as an accountant. If you wish to change it so that only "qualified accountants" are allowed to file those reports because Directors are "unqualified" to do so, surely therefore the responsibility for the accuracy of those accounts needs to transfer 100% to the filing accountant, after all if Directors are not qualified to file them they are also surely not qualified to understand what you are filing on their behalf. Are you prepared to take that on that responsibility and associated risk?

Bit confusing that, on the one hand you have a Director filing accounts with no knowledge of the accounting rules and principles and being allowed in some cases to file any old rubbish that is technically incorrect, on the other hand you have a "qualified" accountant preparing the accounts that has both the experience or qualifications or both to ensure that they meet the accounting standards.

Yes of course they may be a few rotten apples but I think on balance if you took 100 sets of accounts from each category there would be far more accurate accounts in second than the first.

Accountants already do take responsibility for the accuracy of accounts preparation - if I prepare something that is technically incorrect that leads to a financial loss for my client I would expect to be sued.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ash Business Consultants:
By cfield
16th Mar 2022 19:13

Ash Business Consultants wrote:

It was like that other article a few weeks ago about HMRC looking into the "quality of service" offered by non affiliated agents. Again yet every week without fail another one of the big firms is being caught in a scandal and being fined\taken to court for some form of malfeasance, dodgy tax avoidance scam etc etc.

Being "registered" is just a smokescreen to fool the masses that they can have faith in the system. When the reality is it's just a way of gatekeeping the industry and increase the fees charged.

I'm getting a little fed up with these insinuations that "regulated" firms (I see you avoid the word "qualified") are somehow conning the public by unfairly trading on their credentials, whilst all the time peddling dodgy tax schemes and generally being no better than other firms. For your information, very few of us have anything to do with those dodgy schemes. That's just the big boys, who take their extortionate fees but run to the hills when the brown stuff hits the fan.

We also have to meet exacting CPD standards every year, maintain expensive PI cover, ensure someone can take over if we drop dead, and most of all, answer to our professional bodies if anyone complains. You lot don't need to do any of this. Incidentally, you're regulated too (or supposed to be) but only by HMRC, who aren't fit for purpose themselves.

I'm not saying unqualified firms are no good. The work has been dumbed down enough over the years so that filing accounts and tax returns (at least small ones) is not something you need to be highly qualified for. I've seen a lot of terrible work over the years from qualified firms as well as unqualified, but at least with us there is a professional body the client can complain to about it.

I think what really gets my goat is that the public seem unaware that accountants don't need to be qualified. They just assume that they are, and of course, the unqualified ones aren't going to put them straight. I wouldn't say the work should be legally reserved for qualified firms, as much of it is easy enough for anyone with a certain level of knowledge to do, but perhaps they should be made to put "Not a qualified firm" on their letterhead, so at least the public know this and can weigh up the risk of using them.

Thanks (3)
Replying to cfield:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
21st Mar 2022 09:37

Smaller firms often acted as a conduit introducing their clients to the peddlers of marketed tax schemes, a lot of them may not have invented the schemes but they certainly got their hands dirty marketing them.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By CJaneH
15th Mar 2022 17:03

I have no problem with this. If you want limited liability you should have to forgo some privicy.

Thanks (11)
Replying to CJaneH:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
15th Mar 2022 18:45

Quite ... no-one is forced to incorporate when setting-up or running a business.

Thanks (5)
Replying to CJaneH:
Should Be Working ... not playing with the car
By should_be_working
16th Mar 2022 09:45

Some - and enough - privacy is already forgone.

Publishing a profit and loss account - in some cases, effectively your salary - is a step too far and only of legitimate interest to shareholders and HMRC (and any potential lender, who can ask if necessary).

The balance sheet is an indication of solvency, which is surely the key piece of financial information as far as limited liability is concerned.

Thanks (12)
Replying to should_be_working:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Mar 2022 11:24

Agree
There seems to be no evidence that the micro company profit and loss being published would achieve any result.

All those who think it good? Provide evidence that such invasion of privicy is justified.
What exactly is the point or the need

Thanks (4)
Replying to should_be_working:
avatar
By BJM
21st Mar 2022 18:04

should_be_working wrote:

The balance sheet is an indication of solvency, which is surely the key piece of financial information as far as limited liability is concerned.


The balance sheet can tell you little about ESG matters and often very little about what a company actually does.

Single (and few) director companies have little structured governance and oversight and yet benefit from incorporation and limited liability.

Rather than Central government, I welcome measures which might allow members, customers, consumers, employees and other stakeholders to check up on such companies and begin to better hold them to account.

Thanks (1)
Chris M
By mr. mischief
15th Mar 2022 17:39

Well overdue!

Thanks (5)
Replying to mr. mischief:
the sea otter
By memyself-eye
15th Mar 2022 18:14

No, nonsense - my (now ex) micro company's P&L is no one's business but the shareholders (me and 'er indoors)

Any more than your salary is.......

More government tosh.

Now, where did I park my Yacht?

Thanks (14)
Replying to memyself-eye:
By Nebs
16th Mar 2022 10:08

Perhaps we should all, directors, employees, self employed, unemployed, everyone, have to make our income public.
After the initial furore, and after we've all looked up the profits of friends, family, neighbours, and MPs, it will become the norm. And all those people living on £10,000 a year with 2 Mercs in the drive and 3 holidays a year will be able to explain to the rest of us what we are doing wrong.

Thanks (6)
Replying to memyself-eye:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Mar 2022 11:26

Amazed that we have accountants here that really want to pi55 off their clients

Thanks (4)
Replying to memyself-eye:
avatar
By Joe Soap
16th Mar 2022 11:41

Well if you want to keep it to yourself (and Mrs) why have a limited company, why not just trade as a partnership?
Incorporation (and disclosure) has for a long time the price you pay for limited liability. Seems a fair deal.
Oh, and you probably want the tax advantages. Then you need to choose!

There were lots of people who were really upset because they couldn’t get decent furlough payments because their salary was c£8k and furlough wasn’t available for dividends.

You make your choices and pay your money.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Joe Soap:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Mar 2022 12:33

Disagree
You probably do not remember the enterprise push by the then labour government
Companies being encouraged: HM Gov wanted all traders in limited liability. That way they would trade more effectively aand be prepared to take trade risks
The even started a nil rate band of tax
The point of limited liability is that they grow, take on employees and contribute

My clients
The self-employed rarely take on employees other than family, and most never reach £50,000 profit

Thanks (5)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Mar 2022 14:53

Not so for me - I certainly had partnership clients with employees that did very well ( from memory one was £150k profit, £700k T/O, staff, £250k in bank, £150k in stock, virtually nothing in creditors )

I even work as an employee for a partnership (established in 1976) that
alone generates a decent profit every year,

These days we operate from one general partnership, one LLP and two limited companies. (I appreciate we have few employees but that is because we outsource most services we need)

Partnerships are very useful entities and the fact that fewer accountants suggest them may be more about the accountants and their comfort zones and less about the suitability of the wrapper.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Mar 2022 15:53

A partnership, general, is exposed to risk
If partner B cannot pay then partner A pays THE LOT
And takes just as much time in accounts prep as a ltd company

Any accountant suggesting a partnership with risk is better than a company would be rare
No company than went broke ever complained about the really good advice to avoid risk
On the other hand partnerships that went broke........

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Brend201
15th Mar 2022 19:38

Two comments:
1. Julia says "no more Donald Ducks listed as directors then!"

I worked with a man whose name was Donald Duck in a company in Somerset in the early 1990s. The audit senior had fun with the junior each year. "I want you to check the payroll for fake employees." Excited junior finds this name and concludes: fraud.

2. It amuses me that the UK has fairly good companies filing requirements already - and free of charge to the user. The requirement to file accounts originally came from the 4th EEC Directive on Company Law. I have wondered since Brexit in 2016 whether the UK would dump Companies House as part of the drive to get rid of red tape.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Brend201:
JD Portrait
By John Downes
16th Mar 2022 09:44

"The requirement to file accounts originally came from the 4th EEC Directive on Company Law."
Really? Nothing to do with the Companies Act 1948 then? (Which was itself a consolidation of earlier legislation.)

Thanks (9)
Replying to John Downes:
avatar
By Joe Soap
16th Mar 2022 11:43

Or the CA1923?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Brend201:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Mar 2022 12:05

There is one up here, or was, his son was my brother in law's best man when my oldest sister was getting married back in the late 70s.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
15th Mar 2022 23:42

This will achieve a bit fat zero
Those who comply now will comply, but need to disclose income and cost figures to the entire world
Those who are dubious will continue to file dubious returns
Nothing will change because companies house will continue to accept any old rubbish,

Charities will continue to file micro accounts

Thanks (21)
avatar
By SXGuy
16th Mar 2022 09:38

How does the requirement to show a p & l help to establish the assets held? Unless I'm missing something assets are shown in the balance sheet.

Thanks (11)
Replying to SXGuy:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Mar 2022 12:11

Some are, some are not, self created assets are often not included on the balance sheet which generally singularly fails to demonstrate the value of a company.

Maybe it is an age thing, I started when full audited accounts were required to be lodged for all companies, but imho if you want Limited liability there is a price to pay.

I would also point out that because of modified/abbreviated/fileted one often comes across prospective tenants who claim not to have anything else but the pathetic accounts they present to you as they seek to become your tenant, over the years this has become pretty common so am really unsure what they do re their CT returns etc.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jeremy28
16th Mar 2022 09:38

Not happy. Why should my neighbors, friends, family etc know what I earn? HMRC have the data anyways, is not going to help things.

Thanks (14)
Replying to jeremy28:
avatar
By Chelseabean
16th Mar 2022 17:21

Agree.

Also what actual use or benefit is knowing what a limited company earned prep and post 9 months ago? Most of my clients want to file as late as possible, so anyone relying on their financial information that is 9 months late are naiive.

The Government gets full blown accounts via HMRC anyway every year so why now make this public information? It certainly does not help Government in any way in terms of disclosure.

Thanks (0)
Replying to jeremy28:
avatar
By Chelseabean
16th Mar 2022 17:21

Agree.

Also what actual use or benefit is knowing what a limited company earned prep and post 9 months ago? Most of my clients want to file as late as possible, so anyone relying on their financial information that is 9 months late are naiive.

The Government gets full blown accounts via HMRC anyway every year so why now make this public information? It certainly does not help Government in any way in terms of disclosure.

Thanks (4)
Replying to jeremy28:
avatar
By Chelseabean
16th Mar 2022 17:21

Agree.

Also what actual use or benefit is knowing what a limited company earned prep and post 9 months ago? Most of my clients want to file as late as possible, so anyone relying on their financial information that is 9 months late are naiive.

The Government gets full blown accounts via HMRC anyway every year so why now make this public information? It certainly does not help Government in any way in terms of disclosure.

Thanks (0)
Replying to jeremy28:
avatar
By Chelseabean
16th Mar 2022 17:21

Agree.

Also what actual use or benefit is knowing what a limited company earned prep and post 9 months ago? Most of my clients want to file as late as possible, so anyone relying on their financial information that is 9 months late are naiive.

The Government gets full blown accounts via HMRC anyway every year so why now make this public information? It certainly does not help Government in any way in terms of disclosure.

Thanks (0)
Replying to jeremy28:
avatar
By Chelseabean
16th Mar 2022 17:21

Agree.

Also what actual use or benefit is knowing what a limited company earned prep and post 9 months ago? Most of my clients want to file as late as possible, so anyone relying on their financial information that is 9 months late are naiive.

The Government gets full blown accounts via HMRC anyway every year so why now make this public information? It certainly does not help Government in any way in terms of disclosure.

Thanks (0)
Donald MacKenzie
By Donald MacKenzie
16th Mar 2022 09:50

Unless Companies House has an investigation role to check validity of submissions, or there is a pre-qualification for submissions, these reforms will do nothing.
Those businesses submitting real numbers will still do so, and reveal all to those interested.
Those submitting rubbish, either because they do not understand the rules or choose to submit fake figures, will still submit rubbish.
The profits of "Old Jimmy from down the road" will be visible to all, but the numbers submitted by "XYZ Ltd" will not be associated with "Dodgy Derek" as he will have used an incorrect address, or date of birth, or used a misspelling of his name.
The old regime, when a company needed an audit by a registered practitioner was not as cheap for businesses as now, but maybe the system is now too cheap and too lax.
Maybe a requirement on companies to have the person signing the accounts personally responsible for any errors, unless submitted by a professional accredited by Companies House (so NOT just qualified with an institute) would solve some issues.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By snickersinatwix
16th Mar 2022 09:52

"Current requirements permit a small entity (including a micro-entity) to omit the profit and loss account and related notes, together with the directors’ report, when filing at Companies House."

Small companies do not prepare any notes or a directors report any more. or did they forget that? And we have never had to file the P&L account.

Thanks (0)
Replying to snickersinatwix:
avatar
By Joe Soap
16th Mar 2022 11:47

Not true.
All companies , however small, neededto file full accounts - BS, P&L and notes until, er I forget when it was no longer required.
Anyone remember when that stopped?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Joe Soap:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Mar 2022 12:19

Modified accounts appear to arise from the 1985 CA , s247, the note to same says commencement 1 July 1985 (I still have my 1985 Butterworth Company Law handbook)

Audits were still required until later.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By snickersinatwix
16th Mar 2022 09:55

I have a client who I have not heard from for nearly two years. Surprise surprise he is a builder. pretty sure he is still trading. No accounts filed since March 2020. I am sure he will let the company be struck off and never file anything. No doubt will keep all the money he has made (six figures in 2020) and pay zero tax. Will HMRC do anything?

Thanks (2)
Replying to snickersinatwix:
avatar
By C Graham
16th Mar 2022 10:07

If you haven't heard for two years and do not even know if he is still trading he may not be your client any more.

Thanks (3)
Replying to C Graham:
avatar
By snickersinatwix
16th Mar 2022 10:12

OK, so correct - he is not my client any more as I have written and resigned. He is a local builder so I know he is still trading.

Thanks (2)

Pages