Member Since: 2nd Feb 2009
Overt sarcasm may ensue
12th Sep 2019
Feeling totally chilled about entering the market....(groan)
23rd Aug 2019
For any DIY tax-returner this book may well still be relevant...
19th Jul 2019
If you're a Slack user there's little incentive to switch to Teams until Microsoft turn off the integration taps with Slack which might push more people over to G-Suite.
Microsoft also need to deal with winding down Yammer and transition users to Teams.
Finally, Teams needs to up the integrations it has to compete with Slack including a focus on Zapier/IFTTT rather than Flow (which is the Sage BCA to Xero/QBO).
10th Jul 2019
"Small entities applying Section 1A are required to disclose material transactions entered into with their directors and owners holding a participating interest in the entity that have not been concluded under normal market conditions. Therefore, particulars would need to be disclosed if a loan had been interest-free or
at a below-market rate, if material."
The quote above comes from an ICAEW Financial Reporting Faculty paper on preparing small entity accounts published in Feb 2019. Lots of judgement needed on what is material when choosing whether or not to disclose a credit balance on a DLA...
I think many had assumed that the advent of FRS 102 (particularly 1A) had meant that DLA's in credit no longer needed to be disclosed, assuming they had been under old UK GAAP.
FV considerations for overdrawn DLA's seem to be generally ignored as well.
3rd Jul 2019
Those example accounts are correct. As there's no tax note (not requireed in 1A accounts) you're not seeing the DT charge hitting P&L but it will be part of that charge in the P&L, which is correct. The hyperlink to the notes refers to the same.
I wouldn't religiously follow those example accounts as an operating profit note isn't required - it's a bit misleading as there are some exceptional items, which have to be disclosed under 1A included there correctly. Again see the hyperlinks to the notes.
3rd Jul 2019
Which model accounts are these? Without seeing them it's hard to pass comment but I'll try...
Without trying to make this too confusing - if the net profit after tax is £125k ie £100k trading profit (after CT and DT), £25k FV gain (after DT) then this would go to P&L reserve and non-distributable reserve respectively. Technically it all goes to P&L reserve first and you transfer/ring fence the non-distributable part.
The tax charge/credit in P&L should be made up as follows:
CT on trading profit/loss
DT on timing differences
DT on FV gain/loss through P&L
3rd Jul 2019
I think the company's act is quite clear on legality of dividends and directors' responsibilities to ensure companies can continue to meet their debts as they fall due based on reasonable assessments of going concern.
I don't understand the moral panic either but I do understand the legal one. I think it's fair to say that many assets/liabilities may not be readily convertible into the balances shown on the balance sheet, but directors are responsible for ensuring these are true and fair and not materially incorrect.
Prepayments have a value assuming the going concern basis remains appropriate on the basis they will reverse to P&L (reducing distributable reserves), if not, the accounts would be prepared on a break up basis with no prepayments.
Fixed assets are similar to the above - directors are obliged to assess all fixed assets for impairment and adjust as necessary. I think it's a reasonable assumption that many companies, and their advisors, fail to get depreciation and impairment policies that are accurate. Such that many assets are over depreciated and impaired assets tend not to be.
3rd Jul 2019
The deferred tax charge follows the accounting treatment of the differences in market value (fair value).
In the examples given we have:
an investment property where fair value movements hit P&L, therefore so does the deferred tax movement; and
a revaluation (fair value adjustment) of property, plant and equipment (used in the trade of the business) whereby the fair value movement is required to be accounted for in a revaluation reserve, hence the deferred tax movement is here.
As the investment property is held for this purpose (investment returns), just as say a share or other investment would be expected to, the accounting treatment is to recognise gains and losses in P&L.
As the PPE is used in the trade of the business any valuation gains are incidental to the trade and purpose of owning the assets so these are not recognised in P&L and instead in other comprehensive income resulting in a revaluation reserve. The same can be done for valuation losses, in certain circumstances, but these may also hit P&L if they are deemed to be a permanent impairment (i.e. treat in same way as depreciation).
This change in treatment from old UK GAAP is controversial for some but I think better represents the purposes of holding different types of assets - investments or to facilitate the trade of the business.
21st Jun 2019
T&F doesn't work on this I'm afraid, but you seem to think there is an implicit cost of implementing the FRS, which implies you haven't read it!
There's no requirement to undertake formal valuations of investment properties, so the director(s) can do their own as long as they comply with the requirements of section 11 and the valuation technique, assumptions etc are disclosed. The only issue arises if the company is subject to audit and the technique could be challenged if materially incorrect.
On deferred tax the only difference is this is now recognised rather than disclosed in the accounts (something that was usually missed) so the necessary paperwork and calculations should just be rolled up from previous years and then updated..
On ROI isn't the purpose of an investment property to make a return, whether that be capital, revenue or both? How you decide to measure this is then a choice.
19th Jun 2019
"Where fair value gains are presented as a separate component of equity, some professional bodies are advising against calling the reserve a ‘Fair value reserve’ which is what some automated accounts production software systems are referring to the reserve as by default. Instead, they are advising member firms to call it a ‘Non-distributable reserve’..."
I'd love to see a reference to this as I hadn't picked this up from commentary by other experts.
Given the FV adjustment on investment properties is similar to FV movements on other investments I don't see the issue on the naming convention.