Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
Filing options for small companies up for change | accountingweb
iStock_azmanl_small_business

Filing options for small companies up for change

by

Companies House reforms, intended to help tackle economic crime, involve changing the filing requirements for small companies, including micro-entities.

28th Feb 2023
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill is making steady progress through Parliament. This Bill contains proposals to reform Companies House and equivalent Registrars for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Part of the Companies House reforms involve changing the filing requirements for small companies (including micro-entities). The idea behind these changes is to improve transparency by making more financial information available to the public. The government’s proposals also state that this will help tackle economic crime and provide more information for enforcement agencies. 

To recap on the current size thresholds, a company is “small” if it satisfies two out of the following three criteria for two consecutive years:

  • turnover £10.2m or less
  • balance sheet total (that is, total assets) of £5.1m or less
  • an average of 50 employees or fewer.

A company is a “micro-entity” if it satisfies any two of the following three criteria for two consecutive years:

  • turnover £632,000 or less
  • balance sheet total (that is, total assets) of £316,000 or less
  • an average of 10 employees or fewer.

Currently, the registrar accepts information for placing on the public record in good faith. To ensure the integrity of information placed on the public record, the reforms will provide the registrar with more querying power. The objective of these additional powers is to ensure information on the register is more reliable and accurate. There are some additional new measures to be introduced which include the following.

  • Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identify with Companies House.
  • Companies House will be provided with the power to challenge suspicious information and to inform security agencies of potential wrongdoing.
  • Overseas agents will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals.
  • The quality of information provided to Companies House will be improved so that companies that rely on it to make business decisions can trust who they are doing business with.
  • Filing processes for small businesses will be streamlined and digitised.
  • Company directors will be better able to protect personal information published by Companies House that may put them at risk of fraud or other harm.

Current filing regime for small entities

Currently, section 444 of Companies Act 2006 states that the directors of a company subject to the small companies regime:

  1. must deliver to the registrar for each financial year a copy of the balance sheet drawn up as at the last day of that year, and
  2. may also deliver to the registrar
    1. a copy of the company’s profit and loss account for that year, and
    2. a copy of the directors’ report for that year.

Note the word ‘may’ in b) above. 

Most small companies choose to file just the balance sheet and related notes. This version of the accounts that are filed at Companies House has been coined “filleted” accounts or “filleted abridged” accounts. The majority of small companies tend not to file the directors’ report, profit and loss account and any notes relating to the profit and loss account. 

The current regime has not been without its interpretational difficulties since the abolition of abbreviated accounts, and many questioned the reason for the abolition of abbreviated accounts at the time. Abridged accounts have often been misinterpreted as a replacement for the old abbreviated accounts, which they were not. 

The government carried out a consultation regarding the action it should take to ensure the integrity of information lodged at Companies House. During that consultation, the accountancy profession, credit sector law enforcement bodies, and some individuals suggested that the minimal disclosures which small entities make in their financial statements does not provide a level of transparency that would be considered necessary to get limited liability protection.

Small and micro-entities make up the majority of the public register, hence the reforms will impact such entities. 

New regime

Under the new regime, there will only be two filing options: micro-entities and small companies. There will be no option to file abridged accounts and the government has suggested this will help to avoid confusion and reduce costly mistakes.

All small companies, including micro-entities, will need to file their profit and loss accounts. The government states that putting key information on the public record (such as turnover and profit or loss) will help creditors and consumers make better-informed decisions. 

There are likely to be divided opinions on this issue. Some commentators suggest that filing profit and loss accounts at Companies House will result in sensitive information being placed in the public domain. Others suggest that it is only right that a small company files a profit and loss account given that it receives limited liability protection. It is also expected that some small company directors will be concerned about having to file more information, and some accountants have already commented that some of their clients are considering disincorporating to avoid the need to file more detailed accounting information. 

It is not certain at the present time as to the format the profit and loss account that is to be lodged with the Registrar of Companies will take. A notable point made by the government in these proposals is as follows: “The detail and format of the profit and loss account filings will be set out in secondary legislation. This is being developed in consultation with business and accountancy groups. We’ll keep you updated on its development and on timescales.”

This suggests that the format of the profit and loss account may be different for filing purposes than the profit and loss account, which is prepared for the shareholders and other stakeholders, such as HMRC. 

For small companies that claim audit exemption, there will also be an additional statement required by the directors. The statement will require the directors to identify the exemption being relied on and to confirm that the company qualifies for the exemption. Currently, small entities claiming audit exemption are required to include a statement confirming the company is entitled to exemption from audit under section 477, Companies Act 2006 and that the members have not required the company to obtain an audit. The additional statement is likely to require the directors to confirm how the company is eligible to claim exemption from audit. 

Other notable changes

There are some other notable changes proposed in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill as follows:

  • a requirement for accounts to be filed digitally and fully tagged using iXBRL
  • the removal of a paper filing option for most companies
  • providing the Registrar of Companies with power to require all component parts of a filing to be delivered together to facilitate the digital filing of more complex accounts
  • limiting the number of times a company can shorten its annual reporting period (this is likely to be aligned to the five-year rule for lengthening a reporting period).

Conclusion

At the time of writing, the Bill was at the committee stage. It is expected to be given Royal Assent in the spring and so we should know in the coming months when this legislation will become effective. 

Steve Collings will be on Any Answers Live on on  Monday 6 March to take YOUR questions explain further the implications of the Companies House reforms. Save your space for what is sure to be a popular session and be sure to bring your questions. 

Replies (45)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

the sea otter
By memyself-eye
28th Feb 2023 17:50

Filing the P&L.....
Do I post my personal tax return for all to see?
No.
Companies house is just a register, HMRC is the tax authority.
It should stay that way.

Thanks (29)
Replying to memyself-eye:
By Duggimon
01st Mar 2023 10:11

Perhaps if your limited company figures are personal enough to you to be equated with your personal tax return in terms of sensitivity then separating them into a limited company is the wrong approach.

The tax advantage of limited companies is being eroded all the time, I expect the ultimate goal here is to reduce the numbers of limited companies overall, removing the bottommost tier of low income low asset companies by having them disincorporate due to there being clear privacy concerns stacked up against little to no advantage, in cases where the company is essentially a single person's single income stream.

I'm not sure the limited liability for a business venture is necessarily a universal right to be granted without quid pro quo. If it's desirable to you to have it for your business then I think a minimum level of transparency is a positive thing.

Thanks (8)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By norstar
01st Mar 2023 13:27

Whilst I agree with your theory that it's a ploy to disincentivise small companies Duggimon. what nonsense is this?:

Duggimon wrote:

Perhaps if your limited company figures are personal enough to you to be equated with your personal tax return in terms of sensitivity then separating them into a limited company is the wrong approach.

Not all small companies are single director income streams and it's not always about tax. We all accept that it's not appropriate to treat a small electrical retailer company the same as Amazon when it comes to disclosure etc, so why can we not recognise that a smaller business has genuine privacy concerns?

It's nothing to do with tax for me. I don't want my staff seeing my profits. I segregate finance functions partly to avoid this. Others don't want landlords seeing what they make. Or friends. Until now, my friends don't know what I earn, but seeing a P&L at Companies House will make splitting the cost of the next restaurant meal interesting.

And so on.

I get the need for transparency, but creditors can insist on full accounts before entering into a transaction. In my view, this is a breach of privacy for smaller entities who stand to be negatively impacted a hell of a lot more than Amazon, when it comes to disclosing the full income information.

Thanks (14)
Replying to norstar:
By Duggimon
01st Mar 2023 15:20

I don't see any moral or privacy issue with tying limited liability to transparency. That's why our firm isn't limited.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By CJaneH
28th Feb 2023 18:03

I think the important change should be details of directors.
1 Full official name
2 NI number or equivalent (Not public domain but available to HMRC etc)
3 Updating home address of directors (not public domain perhaps)

When I have looked through companies house records for people and companies you know a little about the variations in the name & address are legion, so making it impossible to check all companies a director is associated with.

If you want limited liability you should at least be traceable.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By GHarr497688
28th Feb 2023 18:49

I am old enough to remember when the P & L and full accounts needed to be filed. At the time of the change it was stated that too much information was in the public domain. I really think someone in The Government departments comes up with this to justify their worth.

Thanks (14)
avatar
By Hugo Fair
28th Feb 2023 18:49

It's not the author's fault, but "There are some additional new measures to be introduced which include the following" ... is actually followed by a list of 6 items that are at best broad objectives, but are certainly NOT measures (or even actions).

Typical hyperbole from the spin doctors of HMG - quick to promise but seemingly incapable of delivery (usually, as here, because there's a lack of willingness to impose effective change).

Thanks (5)
avatar
By The Innkeeper
01st Mar 2023 09:55

This would also be a golden opportunity for HMG to legislate that all limited companies have to have a suitably qualified accountant as the accountant.

Thanks (0)
Replying to The Innkeeper:
By Duggimon
01st Mar 2023 10:13

How are we defining "suitably qualified" here? I'm a CA but there are certainly more than a couple of bods over in Any Answers who are more knowledgeable than I about our profession with no such letters after their name.

Thanks (8)
Replying to The Innkeeper:
avatar
By whiteways
01st Mar 2023 11:48

So you can double or triple what you charge small companies? Nice try.

Thanks (8)
Replying to The Innkeeper:
By Silver Birch Accts
01st Mar 2023 12:00

Your are proposing that it should be a legal requirement for all companies to use a qualified accountant. That appears to me to be totally wrong, no company should be forced to appoint an accountant. There are a lot of companies (mainly micro) who look after their affairs, not always successfully I will admit, but to legislate otherwise is restraint on freedom of choice.

Thanks (9)
Replying to The Innkeeper:
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
06th Mar 2023 13:38

By your reasoning then, only suitably qualified tax professionals should be able to do tax, so only CTA's?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By norstar
01st Mar 2023 09:57

Just no. We don't have full "limited liability" as HMRC can still pursue directors personally. If my friends, family and staff see my P&L, it can only cause problems and anyway, what difference does profit make to the liquidity etc if it's all taken in dividends? It doesn't affect a creditor's decision.

As a side note, IME Companies House is run by the most small minded and petty bureaucratic, "computer says no" oiks that I have had the misfortune to come across. Their response to appeals is laughable. Giving more power to them will only make the process more painful.

Thanks (7)
Replying to norstar:
By Duggimon
01st Mar 2023 10:17

norstar wrote:

Just no. We don't have full "limited liability" as HMRC can still pursue directors personally. .

If the director has acted within the law and according to their duties and doesn't personally owe the company money then this is not the case.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By norstar
01st Mar 2023 13:19

Hardly the point. I was more getting at the fact that a complete lack of privacy for a small enterprise is not a price worth paying for the "ltd liability" we are supposed to enjoy.

Tell you what - when Rishi publishes his tax returns - and his wife's, then I'll think about sharing my full financial information with the world at large.

Thanks (5)
Replying to norstar:
avatar
By moneymanager
01st Mar 2023 13:42

yes, and I'd love to burrow into that failed business Clearsprings into which she invested and which received several hundred thousand beforfe it went into VOLUNTARY insolvency, a cursory look shows that it didn't MAKE the furniture ad other goods that it sold but acted as an agent for various craftsmen who effectively made to commission, for the life of me I can't see how an agent could run up such a large trade creditor sum, a scratch below the surface would probaly find a smell worse than the various farms that surround a very hidden private property related to this business.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By a_q
01st Mar 2023 09:57

The main change here that will affect small businesses is the "requirement for accounts to be filed digitally and fully tagged using iXBRL", as it forces the use of (in to most part) paid-for accounting software.
Also, I can see this as being yet another [***]-up when filing accounts via HMRC where you can copy the data to Companies House. The Leap year one a few years ago was a disaster (which they only resolved - or kludged - by loosening the year end filing date by +/- 1 day).

Thanks (6)
avatar
By Arcadia
01st Mar 2023 10:34

I can also remember when every company had to file full accounts, and had to have an audit. This was always badged 'the price of limited liability'. It was wrong in my view to de-regulate on both counts - one or the other would have done. I do think the lack of involvement from an accountant has led to the abuse of limited companies, VAT schemes, phoenix companies etc. It is clear HMRC does not have the resources or resolve to tackle this, but the fault lies in allowing it to happen in the first place. So, yes, bring back the appointment of a 'suitably qualified' accountant for every company. Yes, we all know there are eminently well qualified individuals on here who are QBE. We also know don't we from some of the posts that there are a lot of people out there who shouldn't be acting as anyone's accountant. We all accept that doctors and solicitors need to be qualified, and the vast majority of the population think accountancy is similarly regulated, when it isn't. The solution is to move to a fully qualified profession using grandfathering to allow those currently acting to continue.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Arcadia:
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
06th Mar 2023 13:41

Presumably then only suitably qualified people should be allowed to do tax, so only CTAs?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By fozia
01st Mar 2023 10:37

Yet another burden on small businesses who are being penalised for operating through a limited company. You would not expect a small business to display their P+L and B/S in the public domain, so why the requirement to publish P+L.

Creditors and credit agencies have worked well enough over the decades on information on the public domain and any stakeholder (HMRC, lenders) usually get the full accounts as needed.

As one client pointed out to me, the only person interested in their turnover is their unscrupulous landlord who is always looking for a reason to increase the rent.

Abbreviated balance sheets worked fine until the mess of abridged accounts. they should therefore return to the old system. Publication of P+L figures will leave micro-entities very exposed with no benefit to the public.

Thanks (6)
Replying to fozia:
avatar
By LowPlainsDrifter
02nd Mar 2023 10:38

"You would not expect a small business to display their P+L and B/S in the public domain, so why the requirement to publish P+L."

WHY NOT? the publishing of a P&L is informative to a reader of the accounts, not an intrusion. The benefits of Limited Liability should come with the requirement that you are open about your financial strength

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AndrewV12
01st Mar 2023 10:39

'All small companies, including micro-entities, will need to file their profit and loss accounts. The government states that putting key information on the public record (such as turnover and profit or loss) will help creditors and consumers make better-informed decisions. '

I suppose its fair enough a balance sheet only tells half the story.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dmmarler
01st Mar 2023 10:47

About time to require P&L, etc. This is needed to assess credit worthiness. Furthermore, there should be a registration system for directors so we don't get six variations of each directors' names and addresses. (This might reduce the use of the companies' registered office addresses as directors' address as company (a) won't want their directors' correspondence going to another companiy's registered office ... Furthermore the directors might actually get the correspondence from Companies' House they should receive - where the registered office is at the accountants' offices I have found it get quietly filed and the directors none the wiser .)

Thanks (2)
Replying to dmmarler:
avatar
By DavidWinter
08th Mar 2023 11:12

In my experience whenever a client want's credit, that lender wants, and gets, the full P&L so it's not an issue.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By deltaheavy
01st Mar 2023 10:55

When the time comes I shall be re-registering via the RR05 etc as an unlimited company. No requirement to file any accounts at all IIRC. Unless of course there are changes there too.

Risk re 'unlimited' miniscule I would say after 35 years of service to clients without any issues.

Thanks (0)
Jim Clark, Lotus 49
By jimclark1967
01st Mar 2023 11:02

Companies House could eliminate all paper filing if they accepted PDF.

I prepare accounts for a small charitable company using the Charity Commission / Co House endorsed excel templates.

Charity Commission - no problem, just upload a PDF
Companies House - no alternative but to send by paper. Software not viable for a once a year job.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Ammie
01st Mar 2023 11:08

Keeps the legislative bods busy, revision after revision after revision, criminals with intent are laughing at the suggestions.

Just keep stirring chaps but don't be surprised when it achieves nowt, other than more cost and aggravation to the compliant.

How often have we heard that the revisions are necessary and the way to go? Give it 5 years and repeat.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By emilefrode
01st Mar 2023 11:55

Will these changes also apply to Limited Liability Partnerships?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By tedbuck
01st Mar 2023 12:08

Be a bit more to the point if they would review what is sent to them. I have searched companies and the absolute rubbish filed by some of them is unbelievable - even a first year clerk would raise the eyebrows but Companies House - no chance - although if you missed a comma in the statutory bit they'd be down on your head.

I had a company stolen from a client and reported it to CH who were disinterested all the way to the CEO so it certainly needs a shake-up.

Thanks (2)
By mydoghasfleas
01st Mar 2023 13:43

Perhaps it is all a great idea, in principle. However, it is unlikely to get anywhere near achieving its goal if Companies House maintains current levels of resources and undertakes little or no enforcement. Has there been any enforcement on PSC's?

There is some real naivete here, "Overseas agents will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals." How does the overseas agent or even CH decide if the filing is on behalf of criminals, lunatics or others.

Private Eye has given regular commentary on lax enforcement which simply invites abuse.

You can give the regulations all the teeth you like but there has to be a jaw to make them bite, otherwise the are simply legislative stalactites and stalagmites.

Thanks (4)
By cfield
01st Mar 2023 13:53

I'm not so sure the old quid pro quo of transparency in return for limited liability is all that relevant anymore. If we are going to require accounts to be filed at all, we should at least make them worth looking at. A Balance Sheet under FRS105 tells you nothing at all really, especially if the profits are fully extracted as dividend every year.

The current system doesn't really add much to the public good, and can even be counter-productive if people are led to believe that the legal existence of a company or its accounts being up-to-date is a reassuring sign. All sorts of shysters hide behind limited companies. If you ever need to get your money back from a cowboy tradesman, for instance, woe betide you if he traded through a company.

If people don't like showing their P&Ls because the wife or the landlord might see them, the answer is simple. Work as a sole trader instead. There's not much in it tax-wise now anyway, especially with corporation tax rates going up next month (unless Hunt/Sunak finally see how much damage it's going to do).

I'm a bit worried about the ixbrl tags becoming compulsory as flat-management companies and dormant companies don't usually need to file CT600 returns. I just use the WebFiling for those. Same applies if accounts need to be filed in dollars or euros. The tax software only works in sterling, so I use WebFiling for the CH accounts. Will that no longer be possible?

As for the shortened year ends, I suppose the party had to come to an end on this sometime. It was always scarcely credible that you could buy yourself an extra 3 months just by shortening the year end by 1 day and then do the accounts up to the month end anyway under the 7 day leeway. Clients can hardly believe it when I tell them that. We can't very well argue that it stops us circumventing the filing deadlines in this way.

At the same time though, I think they should mitigate the late filing penalty regime, as the current fines bear down too heavily on micro-entities and are an actual deterrent to people bringing their affairs up-to-date. Faced with a £1,500 penalty for being 6 months late, it's often easier for a small trader to just close down their company and start again with a new one, which of course they can do no questions asked. There should be lower penalties for micro-companies, with suspensions and reductions for mitigating circumstances. At the same time, some persistent offenders deserve to be prosecuted and made to explain themselves in court, which rarely happens now.

If we really want to improve the system, there should be much greater liaison between CH and HMRC. It's ridiculous that CH can strike off a company for not filing its Confirmation Statement when it owes PAYE, VAT, corporation tax and numerous other debts, forcing HMRC to reinstate it through the courts, which rarely happens as they are in such a mess. No company should be struck off until HMRC gives the green light. The tax records must either be brought up to date first or a formal liquidation should take place. HMRC would only allow the strike-off once they receive what the liquidator rakes in for them. Of course, HMRC would have to get their act together for this to work.

Lastly, every limited company should have a nominated UK bank account, registered at CH, and the banks should send regular summaries of all company accounts to HMRC. If a company doesn't save sufficient funds to pay its tax or VAT bills, it should go on an HMRC watch-list for tax inspectors to monitor it and take early action if necessary. Of course, they would need good staff/systems to do this. If they tried to do it now, it would fall over in 5 minutes. It doesn't have to be at huge expense though. All they need are good people able to work on their own initiative with common sense. It would be a lot more effective than MTD. The scalpel always works better than the sledgehammer.

Thanks (2)
Replying to cfield:
avatar
By LowPlainsDrifter
02nd Mar 2023 10:34

well said

Thanks (0)
Replying to cfield:
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
06th Mar 2023 13:50

' If a company doesn't save sufficient funds to pay its tax or VAT bills, it should go on an HMRC watch-list for tax inspectors to monitor it and take early action if necessary.'

And how exactly would HMRC (inspectors don't really exist any more) find the time to monitor all that? And how do you determine 'sufficient'? Also, when do you look? A company might not have anything in the bank account but be owed £1m from debtors in the next 30 days who pay like clockwork, how would your HMRC know that?

What 'early action' would they take? Under what legislation?

HMRC would be better off getting tighter on monies owed and have better systems to spot when things are going wrong.

By far the bigger issue is companies that come into existence and then dissolve without ever filing accounts, or just filing once, then close owing HMRC thousands- because HMRC don't chase debts fast enough due to lack of staff, etc.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Ian McTernan CTA:
By cfield
06th Mar 2023 14:59

Ian, I could write a whole book to explain how HMRC could use real-time access to bank accounts in order to monitor companies. Yes, of course there are going to be cash-flow issues and of course there will need to be new legislation/systems. This was more blue sky thinking than an immediately implementable solution.

I conceived of it more as an early warning system by assessing finances over the medium/long-term so that potential risks to tax revenues could be identified in time to actually do something about it. HMRC would probably need the latest AI technology to overcome the practical difficulties you mention. Getting tighter on monies owed is no good if the monies no longer exist, and what better way to spot when things are going wrong than to have read-only access to the bank accounts?

As for inspectors, I know they don't exist anymore, I just used that old word as a handy definition for top-grade revenue protection officers with the power to take appropriate action. It trips off the tongue more easily. They would need to create some sort of A Team with the brains and wherewithal to make such an innovative system work, rather than the usual bunch of box-tickers. So long as they don't pick Jim Harra as their Mr T.

Yes, you are right, here today gone tomorrow companies are a big tax risk, which is why I said no company should be struck off without HMRC permission.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cfield:
avatar
By creamdelacream
06th Mar 2023 18:00

HMRC building AI, I don't think that's going to go well given their previous results for basic software building.

Thanks (1)
Replying to creamdelacream:
By cfield
06th Mar 2023 19:30

I was talking about Artificial Intelligence, not Artificial Jobsworthiness.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cfield:
avatar
By DavidWinter
08th Mar 2023 11:17

I agree with all of that apart from making the P&L public for small companies funnily enough. I'm more than happy to give the authorities anything they want, including access to bank information - I've got nothing to hide from them. My competitors however are a different story.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DavidWinter:
By cfield
08th Mar 2023 11:29

But you'll be able to see their P&Ls too. At the end of the day, anything that makes a market more competitive and transparent is good for the economy as a whole.

Larger firms have to show their P&Ls anyway, and their competitors look at their accounts even more avidly, so why should smaller firms be exempt from scrutiny?

I wouldn't worry about it myself. One should always trade on quality, not price. It doesn't matter how much money you do or don't make, if you gain a reputation for giving good service and going the extra mile, new clients will keep coming.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Eddystone
01st Mar 2023 23:18

"some accountants have already commented that some of their clients are considering disincorporating to avoid the need to file more detailed accounting information"

A bit off-topic, perhaps, but I did a 2023-24 limited company versus partnership tax comparison today for a client with £270k profits. Two of the three partners / directors were exempt from NI. It was a no-brainer that the partnership was way better than the company with dividends £50k ea + salaries £13k ea, and that was with leaving £81k inaccessible in the company. With the higher CT and dividend tax a small company seems hardly worthwhile now, apart from the liability / protection aspect.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By petestar1969
02nd Mar 2023 09:37

I've thought for a while that HMRC don't like/want self-employed people, as they have to wait to get the tax from them, and have been trying to get as many people as possible on PAYE with nonsense like IR35.

This latest idea of filing P&L accounts again is likely to mean many micro businesses disincorporating and the owners going back to being self-employed. Seems against the flow. I can think of at least half a dozen of my current clients who won't want to publish their P&L accounts.

What about contractors and some construction workers who are usually told to operate via a limited company? Why should they show the world what they earn when they are pretty much employees?

Thanks (1)
Replying to petestar1969:
avatar
By 2TunTed
02nd Mar 2023 12:46

I don't think HMRC are the problem. Its the Treasury that come up with the daft ideas, most of which HMRC manage to talk them out of thanks goodness.

You also have to remember that most of the elected representatives find finance and money too difficult so the Treasury doesn't get the scrutiny or the challenge it otherwise might.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By hyper10
02nd Mar 2023 10:38

If me as a supplier based my credit decisions on the complete guff in accounts, I'd be out of business. How many times does some building related business go bust and the amounts due or WIP go from millions to nothing.
It will only get worse before it gets better.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By deltaheavy
02nd Mar 2023 10:57

.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 2TunTed
02nd Mar 2023 12:41

The principal beneficiaries of the changes will be credit agencies who will have more information to work on and the nosy parkers, journalists etc. It is not my experience that businesses make decisions solely on the basis of what is filed at Companies House and I view these proposals as another attempt to make it look like the Government are behaving responsibly by forcing disclosure rather than actually taking any action against the delinquents hiding behind limited companies. The powers are there but not used a lot, presumably because there isn't the budget. Insolvency practitioners will be familiar with adverse reports on director conduct not always being pursued the seriousness they deserve, if at all.
Yet again the majority are clobbered because of a delinquent minority.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Calculatorboy
05th Mar 2023 21:59

For gods sake a simple balance sheet is more than sufficient for micro companies without any silly notes ...given that very few do searches before contracting with companies ... hmrc allready have full accounts if company fails anyway.

Maybe just toughen up insolvency act with a presumption of guilt for directors if company fails ..put the onus on them

Thanks (1)