Member Since: 13th Jul 2009
19th Apr 2021
What about employment taxes? These should be factored in too.
2nd Apr 2020
"Richard Murphy pointed out in his blog, the government needs to back these loans with 100% guarantees, otherwise banks have no incentive to put themselves at risk."
If there is 100% government guarantee the banks are not at risk!
9th Jan 2020
Brydon has also suggested replacing the "True and Fair" opinion with one that is in effect "complies with accounting standards". This risks transforming auditing into a box ticking profession (or even more of one than it is already!).
18th Jul 2014
Keep it Simple S*****
I am a great believer in "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I have yet to hear anyone say that the FRSSE is not comprehensive enough and that small companies need a more complex standard. Even if something is missing from the FRSSE, the most proportionate response is surely to add in some text to fill the gap, rather than rip up the FRSSE and move to FRS 102.
The argument to replace the FRSSE is that the law has changed and is, or will no longer be compatible with the FRSSE. I have yet to see anyone publish an analysis to support this position.
I have just stumbled upon a call by the FRC for users of the FRSSE to contact Mei Ashelford on [email protected] and give her their opinion about their proposal to move to an FRS 102 based standard. This was in their "Setting the Standard" publication dated October. Hardly what I would call a high profile request for information to underpin evidence based regulation.
18th Jul 2014
A bit late for a dissenting opinion
If you had followed the debacle surrounding the creation of FRS 102 you would have noticed that I was saying that it was not fit for purpose all down the line. Unfortunately there was at that time no grass roots support to back up my position, so we have ended up with the current situation where FRS 102 is overly complex for medium and large UK companies let alone the small ones.
If you do not want the FRSSE to be replaced with an FRS 102 light, you need to be prepared to stand up and be counted NOW before it is too late. Emails to your institute and FRC would probably be a good place to start.
The FRC do not have any contact details on their web site for individuals responsible for the FRSSE, but the individual responsible for UK GAAP is: Jenny Carter, Director of UK Accounting Standards: [email protected]. I am sure that she would love to hear from all of you.
17th Jul 2014
FRS 102 too complex to replace FRSSE
As someone who was involved in the creation of FRS 102, the detailed provisions were never designed for small companies. In my opinion even an FRS 102 with reduced disclosures will be excessive for current FRSSE preparers.
If the FRC wants one approach that can be adapted to apply to all companies regardless of size it needs to fundamentally change FRS 102. It might like to start with the dissenting view on p257 of FRS 102.
27th Mar 2014
Is change necessary?
The test for the FRC is whether the law changes are so great that it is better to rip up the FRSSE and introduce FRS 102 light, or whether it would be more proportionate to retain and amend the FRSSE.
If the accounts are going to look substantially the same as they do at present, then this is unlikely to justify the cost of introducing a totally new rule book.
Consistency with FRS 102 is a "nice to have" not a "need to have". It is not as if the FRSSE is not currently fit for purpose.
10th Jan 2014
True & Fair
While I welcome simplicity in accounting for micro-entities, I am shocked and horrified that the FRC has gone along with the proposal to define such accounts as being "true and fair".
S393 of CA2006 requires accounts to give a true and fair view of the "assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss". I struggle to see how the micro-entity accounting requirements will achieve this in all cases. For example their appears to be no requirement to disclose that bank borrowing facilities are about to expire, and if they cannot be replaced the business will cease to be a going concern (FRSSE para. 2.12).
The concept of "true and fair" has to date been a judgmental issue, and not a matter of ticking the boxes on a disclosure checklist.
Unfortunately it is the statutory regulation that introduces a presumption that micro-entity accounts (properly prepared and giving only the information required by the regulation) give a true & fair view. I believe this, in turn, is a requirement of the EU directive, but I am open to correction on this.
Like Nigel, I am concerned about the implications of this and where it will end.
4th May 2012
BBC focus was on ErsNI not other employment costs
ThornyIssues - I agree with all the extra employment costs, but this was not what the BBC were talking about. They were talking about ErsNI and the rough numbers were solely an illustration of ErsNI. If the BBC want to fulfill their public service broadcasting remit, they (and the "expert" they were talking to, whoever he was) should have known that ErsNI was a red herring, all of the extra costs relates to other employment rights/benefits.
4th May 2012
I particularly enjoyed the part in the program where they worried about the additional "cost" (employers NI) to the government of all these people going onto the payroll. Neither the expert or the journalist seemed to realise that this "extra" cost never left a government bank account.