Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Audit exemption: The tax consequences

by
24th Sep 2012
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

New rules that will exempt more than 100,000 small companies from the requirement to have an audit may raise tax issues, Baker Tilly warned.

The new audit threshold rules, which come into effect on October 1 and were announced by the  Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) earlier in September, mean that small businesses will not need to subject their accounts to an audit if they meet two out of the three qualifying criteria for small company accounts:

  • Fewer than 50 employees
  • Balance sheet total: no more than £3.26m
  • Turnover below £6.5m.

The extension of the audit exemption (which BIS  reckons will apply to more than 100,000 companies) was welcomed by business groups. However, Baker Tilly tax manager said in the firm's Tax Brief last week that when deciding whether to take advantage of the exemptions, directors must remember that “no matter what they decide to do, the company accounts must still comply with the requirements of tax legislation”.

Section 46 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 states that the profits of a trade must be calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP), subject to any adjustment required or authorised by law, Baker Tilly said.

Regardless of the relaxation in the statutory audit requirement this has not changed. Failure to comply with GAAP when calculating profits for corporation tax purposes could mean that the corporation tax return is wrong and this may in turn mean that penalties arise.

John Whiting, tax policy director at the Chartered Institute of Taxation, said it was important to know whether exempting more small companies from an audit might change the way HMRC deals with a company. One possibility could be that HMRC scrutinise the tax affairs of non-audited companies more closely, Whiting said.

Tags:

Replies (10)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By The Black Knight
24th Sep 2012 12:53

Different World?

HMRC do not even understand what a set of GAAP compliant accounts are!

They cannot even spot the missing tax when it is right in their face.

Talk about accountants not understanding the issues.

In fact it is so bad that all you need to do is drop the word abbreviated and they will still accept those accounts even though no full accounts have been prepared.

Companies Act? a toothless tiger!!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By louisVW4
24th Sep 2012 14:43

Does this apply to shareholders who demand an audit?

If a major shareholder is concerned about the company's accounts, suspecting the Director has made various 'unusual' and related party transactions against the interests of the shareholder to hide assets, but who has only been provided with abbreviated accounts, I believe the shareholder with +10% of the shares can demand a full audit under S476(3) of the Companies Act 2006.

Do these new regulations put an end to this? 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By louisVW4
24th Sep 2012 15:09

Associated quick questions please...

The shareholder can demand an audit at least one month before the end of the year in question. However, it is likely all that will be seen is zero cash with no explanation of where it has gone! Is the shareholder entitled under the Act to demand an audit of previous years e.g. the previous 2 years?

What are the implications for the Director if she refuses to comply with the demand?

ps Fraud is suspected in this instance, so this is very important.

Thanks (0)
Chris M
By mr. mischief
24th Sep 2012 18:06

Smell a rat

I smell a rat, in the shape of dwindling audit fees.  Auditing is a complete and utter waste of time as currently conducted.

Number of European banks requiring major financial bailouts since 2007  =  180

Number of those banks with 100% clean audit reports   = 180

Never in the history of human box-ticking have so many been so badly let down by so few.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Mark Ferbert:
avatar
By The Black Knight
24th Sep 2012 18:18

Yes

mr. mischief wrote:

I smell a rat, in the shape of dwindling audit fees.  Auditing is a complete and utter waste of time as currently conducted.

Number of European banks requiring major financial bailouts since 2007  =  180

Number of those banks with 100% clean audit reports   = 180

Never in the history of human box-ticking have so many been so badly let down by so few.

 

I have often wondered how auditing would stand up to a sample test and what the extrapolated error would be and would this be within the bounds of the materiality level for UK plc ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mark Ferbert:
avatar
By jiatbanus
25th Sep 2012 09:29

Audit exemption.
Well said. One of my Clients was invited by RBS to attend a Seminar advising on how to deal with the recession and cash flow. I suppose it was a case of "just drive a truck to the treasury and have it loaded up with taxpayers (sorry - Punters) money!"
I regularly have company directors approach me asking to prepare accounts "at a reasonable fee" because their auditor is too expensive. I know compliance is costly - but not to the degree that astonishes me. I recently sat through a Company meeting in Aberdeen where the Accountant/Auditor sat silently through the whole meeting and admitted that he was charging £500 and hour. Oops! Did I just hear "So what?".

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
25th Sep 2012 11:53

Earth-Shattering

advice from Baker Tilly.

Now that I know that non-audited accounts should be prepared using GAAP, I must stop using the back of an envelope to carry out these tasks.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By louisVW4
25th Sep 2012 12:23

Not really helping me with my questions though...

Small company, not a bank.

I'm not worried about HMRC not being able to read a set of accounts. The problem is actually getting the Director to provide the shareholder with detailed accounts.

The Companies Act may be a 'toothless tiger', but if I could tick all the boxes to prove a pattern intended to defraud or something very close, then the Director's sole employer, a very heavily bailed out UK bank, would be very unhappy employing such a dishonest contractor to assist with the Banks' Finance Transformation!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
avatar
By The Black Knight
25th Sep 2012 12:58

the sections you need are!

louisVW4 wrote:

Small company, not a bank.

I'm not worried about HMRC not being able to read a set of accounts. The problem is actually getting the Director to provide the shareholder with detailed accounts.

The Companies Act may be a 'toothless tiger', but if I could tick all the boxes to prove a pattern intended to defraud or something very close, then the Director's sole employer, a very heavily bailed out UK bank, would be very unhappy employing such a dishonest contractor to assist with the Banks' Finance Transformation!

s.423 cos act 2006 annual accounts must be provided to every member within time limits in s.424 offences in s.425

s.393 requires accounts to show a true and fair view.

No you cannot backdate a demand for a statutory audit, but the shareholders could demand directors call a meeting where they are held to account.

does that help?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
25th Sep 2012 13:05

Louis

To answer your specific question - an audit may still be requested by any shareholder or shareholders holding at least 10% of the issued share capital.

A shareholder would be "out of time" as regards previous years but a properly audited balance sheet should pick up most errors on a cumulative basis.

The new regulations do not affect the Companies Act Section 476. The regulations will likely be brought into law by means of Statutory Instrument. The last Labour government liked this method of bringing in new legislation because it circumvented a lot of work in changing Acts of Parliament.

Sorry, didn't see Black Knight's post before.

Thanks (0)