Some interesting views. However, I am firmly in the booted, tied and suited brigade and have never ever attended the office or the client (with the 1 exception below) without a tie. I have always been an auditor and have been managing the firm's audit department for the last 25 years or so and until now have never looked at my work "uniform" as intimidatory until now! I do believe it shows authority even at a junior level. The only exception to this rigid dress is when attending physical stocktakes when staff are allowed and indeed expected to wear scruffs at factory etc environments as the suit and tie look ridiculous in a greasy dirty workshop and arouses derogatory comments. This still applies to our audit staff in the ever fewer stocktakes left in this type of industry. After almost 45 years of this habit I will be retiring soon and the heaps of ties I have left. There are few from the 70s as in those days they did not last long being trapped in filing cabinet drawers and pulled by errant staples in file and document covers. I now actually wear smart blazers/trousers & tie half the time instead of suits but mostly with tie clips/collar clips & pins/cufflinks and sometimes self-tied bowties. I do not buy 3 piece suits now or generally wear a waistcoat Of course my grandad was somewhat a dandy in the 1920s which has passed down to me and some of his clips etc The office has recently reverted back to a proper dress code for all staff to an increasing trend of some individuals coming into the office and visiting/seeing clients tieless and jacketless and with unpolished shoes. It has also occurred to me that I have been wearing a tie when I am out and about most days since I started school 60 years ago. I even take one or two on holiday abroad but not hot destinations. I do change immediately I get home out of my office clothes and do not sit down to dinner or watch TV in jacket & tie as seen in old films/photographs. Most of our clients do expect their accountants to be smart and look "professional" although some are not bothered particularly the younger ones.
We have had some paper FRS 102 1A filleted accounts rejected because they did not include the auditor's report just the new short statement note in the IRIS format. Several other sets in the same group submitted with them were accepted without question. The rejection letter went to the client and this caused an adverse client comment. The "defective" accounts were resubmitted without alteration and an explanation sought. No response was received and these were accepted. We have not had any serious problems since although some paper accounts were rejected because they were signed in blue ink not black. Online filing is the best option where possible especially if it is close to filing deadline
I've just spotted in the "Vancouver Globe and Mail" the perfect escape route and antidote to FRSSE (late, but not much lamented), IFRS, CIS, AE, RTI, AOSS, PTAs (not to mention the totally infantile absurdly-named "MOSS") and all the other ludicrous acronyms: "Wanted: A new generation of lumberjacks". I'll be busy revising my CV with a view to an early application as soon as possible after 31 January. Where did it all go wrong? - and did anyone consult us at any meaningful level? I think not!
The politicians and the civil servants advising them occupy a higher level divorced from the plebs that pay them.
This has always been the case and efficiency is not a factor if it does not give them more pay
I still believe that most people are honest and want to get it right. Its these though that will have to pay for getting it right either by paying professional fees or more tax to pay lost tax tax from those who get it "wrong" deliberately or otherwise and this will be a substantial element
So as these are not just notes to the balance sheet then these need not be filed either?
Perhaps the simplification with all the extra "statements" will be more complicated than filing full or abridged accounts so the only benefit is business confidentiality?
This may mean more clients or new businesses decide to go it alone without professional advice and just rely on the bar room or Company House "Guidance" docs/website or even ignore it all and just file any old rubbish to tick the boxes.
Do legislators really expect that everyone will have a working knowledge of FRS 102 and CA 2006 and will take advice if they have not?
My answers
Some interesting views. However, I am firmly in the booted, tied and suited brigade and have never ever attended the office or the client (with the 1 exception below) without a tie. I have always been an auditor and have been managing the firm's audit department for the last 25 years or so and until now have never looked at my work "uniform" as intimidatory until now! I do believe it shows authority even at a junior level. The only exception to this rigid dress is when attending physical stocktakes when staff are allowed and indeed expected to wear scruffs at factory etc environments as the suit and tie look ridiculous in a greasy dirty workshop and arouses derogatory comments. This still applies to our audit staff in the ever fewer stocktakes left in this type of industry. After almost 45 years of this habit I will be retiring soon and the heaps of ties I have left. There are few from the 70s as in those days they did not last long being trapped in filing cabinet drawers and pulled by errant staples in file and document covers. I now actually wear smart blazers/trousers & tie half the time instead of suits but mostly with tie clips/collar clips & pins/cufflinks and sometimes self-tied bowties. I do not buy 3 piece suits now or generally wear a waistcoat Of course my grandad was somewhat a dandy in the 1920s which has passed down to me and some of his clips etc The office has recently reverted back to a proper dress code for all staff to an increasing trend of some individuals coming into the office and visiting/seeing clients tieless and jacketless and with unpolished shoes. It has also occurred to me that I have been wearing a tie when I am out and about most days since I started school 60 years ago. I even take one or two on holiday abroad but not hot destinations. I do change immediately I get home out of my office clothes and do not sit down to dinner or watch TV in jacket & tie as seen in old films/photographs. Most of our clients do expect their accountants to be smart and look "professional" although some are not bothered particularly the younger ones.
Filleted new format FRS 102 1A accounts will suffice or full accounts if you wish as long as not FRSEE 2015
We have had some paper FRS 102 1A filleted accounts rejected because they did not include the auditor's report just the new short statement note in the IRIS format. Several other sets in the same group submitted with them were accepted without question. The rejection letter went to the client and this caused an adverse client comment. The "defective" accounts were resubmitted without alteration and an explanation sought. No response was received and these were accepted. We have not had any serious problems since although some paper accounts were rejected because they were signed in blue ink not black. Online filing is the best option where possible especially if it is close to filing deadline
Acronyms
I quite like COPE but not its implication
The politicians and the
The politicians and the civil servants advising them occupy a higher level divorced from the plebs that pay them.
This has always been the case and efficiency is not a factor if it does not give them more pay
I still believe that most people are honest and want to get it right. Its these though that will have to pay for getting it right either by paying professional fees or more tax to pay lost tax tax from those who get it "wrong" deliberately or otherwise and this will be a substantial element
Accounting policies
So as these are not just notes to the balance sheet then these need not be filed either?
Perhaps the simplification with all the extra "statements" will be more complicated than filing full or abridged accounts so the only benefit is business confidentiality?
This may mean more clients or new businesses decide to go it alone without professional advice and just rely on the bar room or Company House "Guidance" docs/website or even ignore it all and just file any old rubbish to tick the boxes.
Do legislators really expect that everyone will have a working knowledge of FRS 102 and CA 2006 and will take advice if they have not?
More confusion?
Apart from giving more options and minor changes with increased disclosure is this supposed to simplify things/reduce red tape?
Are or have LLP's accounts been subject to similar changes