To many commenters here rush to see the big firms as fundamentally bad. This sounds as if it *could* have been bad practice for innocent-ish reasons rather than being out-and-out dishonesty.
Actually USA do have Sales Taxes, State and Federal.
US sales taxes are not the same as a value-added tax - it is just a tax on the end consumer with no concept of input tax and output tax. B2B sales of certain goods and services can usually be exempted if the seller holds a valid exemption certificate provided by the buyer.
And how would you propose to raise the c£200bn revenue generated from VAT?
Almost every developed nation barring USA has a form of VAT. It's *relatively* difficult to evade and for *most* businesses, reasonably straightforward to administer
Nothing to do with Brexit. Most EU member states apply a reduced rate of VAT to all foods. The UK got a derogation on joining the EEC to permit zero-rating and has always had the option to reduce the scope of zero-rating.
You will find few here who disagree that we should all expect better service from HMRC.
Apart from that, still no idea why appellant being ex-military is relevant, or indeed why serving or former military should get special treatment from HMRC.
The full disciplinary report states that a schedule was provided to and reviewed by the disciplinary panel. It also notes something the effect that not all costs were charged.
FRS102 s3.8 requires financial statements to be prepared on a going concern basis unless management either intends to liquidate the entity or to cease trading, or has no realistic alternative but to do so.
s3.9 goes on to state that if there is material uncertainty about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, the entity shall disclose those uncertainties.
That's exactly how the disclosures were made in the financial statements of Wilko. Any creditor who chose to review those statements should have been fully aware that there was a risk in advancing credit to the company.
The reality is that future cashflow forecast...was not stress tested properly at the time the accounts were published.
With every respect, Adam, unless you are a present/former employee of Wilko or EY, you can't possibly know that.
It's very easy to say with hindsight that they should have known at the time. But at the end of the day, the going concern assessment and the auditor opinion thereon rely on informed judgement, which is never going to be 100% infallible.
My answers
Good to have a bit of real world perspective.
To many commenters here rush to see the big firms as fundamentally bad. This sounds as if it *could* have been bad practice for innocent-ish reasons rather than being out-and-out dishonesty.
US sales taxes are not the same as a value-added tax - it is just a tax on the end consumer with no concept of input tax and output tax. B2B sales of certain goods and services can usually be exempted if the seller holds a valid exemption certificate provided by the buyer.
And how would you propose to raise the c£200bn revenue generated from VAT?
Almost every developed nation barring USA has a form of VAT. It's *relatively* difficult to evade and for *most* businesses, reasonably straightforward to administer
Nothing to do with Brexit. Most EU member states apply a reduced rate of VAT to all foods. The UK got a derogation on joining the EEC to permit zero-rating and has always had the option to reduce the scope of zero-rating.
We only find out about audit failures when companies go under. Understatement of assets doesn't lead to bankruptcy
Not so. This is a penalty levied by the FRC.
ICAEW get their turn next - there is pecking order that means criminal trials and investigations by statutory bodies come first.
You will find few here who disagree that we should all expect better service from HMRC.
Apart from that, still no idea why appellant being ex-military is relevant, or indeed why serving or former military should get special treatment from HMRC.
The full disciplinary report states that a schedule was provided to and reviewed by the disciplinary panel. It also notes something the effect that not all costs were charged.
FRS102 s3.8 requires financial statements to be prepared on a going concern basis unless management either intends to liquidate the entity or to cease trading, or has no realistic alternative but to do so.
s3.9 goes on to state that if there is material uncertainty about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, the entity shall disclose those uncertainties.
That's exactly how the disclosures were made in the financial statements of Wilko. Any creditor who chose to review those statements should have been fully aware that there was a risk in advancing credit to the company.
With every respect, Adam, unless you are a present/former employee of Wilko or EY, you can't possibly know that.
It's very easy to say with hindsight that they should have known at the time. But at the end of the day, the going concern assessment and the auditor opinion thereon rely on informed judgement, which is never going to be 100% infallible.