Member Since: 16th Nov 2011
29th Oct 2015
You are right to point out that the OP
the OP wants to add items only on List B to List A. As long as no checking is required, the suggested method does work as you end up with a complete unique list.
You are right to point out that the OP does indeed want to end up with just one longer list. But the ‘Remove Duplicates’ function as described would not allow them to identify specifically what items in list B are missing from List A. This may or may not be important, we don't know. I guess I focused more on the ‘find unique values’ bit rather than the ‘one long list’ bit.
However the ‘remove duplicates’ method suggested would not achieve this end goal without the additional step of adding all the 'unique' values from the original 'remove duplicates' action to the bottom of list A, and then once again performing the 'remove duplicates' action again (some list A values would be in the 'unique values' from the first action, and therefore be duplicated by adding them to the bottom of the list again).
I think the OP has plenty of options now, hopefully one or more is suitable for what they need to do.
29th Oct 2015
I seem to do this daily, and automatically go to my default function that I use virtually in my sleep which is
where list A is in column A, List B is in column B and the function is entered in column C in every cell next to values in Column B. People often forget to put 'False' at the end to ensure it is looking for exact matches only.
The numbers you are looking for in column B will be highlighted with #N/A in the corresponding cell in column C which is fine for just trying to identify items for yourself (eg. I often use this if a VAT transaction report doesn't match transactions posted to VAT account in the nominal, so I need to locate the error), but can be a little messy if you want to share the work with someone else. If you wanted column C to literally show nothing unless you there is a missing value, and you want it to say ‘missing from list A’ or some other comment then you can easily do this as follows:
=IF(ISERROR(VLOOKUP(B1,A:A,1,FALSE)),"Missing from list A","")
This appears more complicated but is straight forward once you have used it a few times and does allow you to make the analysis on your lists more presentable and understandable to other users/reviewers.
For quick and easy, I do also like the =COUNTIF method suggested above and the Conditional formatting to highlight duplicates also mentioned (but on longer lists this may be less use other than again ensuring it is presented well for other users to easily see unique numbers).
29th Oct 2015
paulsaville - With your method the
paulsaville - With your method of 'Remove duplicates' the resulting list would also include numbers in List A that were not in List B, so the result would not be what the OP requested. They only want to know what numbers from list B are NOT in list A.
20th Oct 2015
Have they already signed the papers and filed with land registry? They should have sought your involvement earlier if they have, it may have proved costly otherwise.
25th Feb 2015
Thank you all for your input.
I think you have all confirmed what I thought and hoped which was that I could carry out the work for the charity in the scenario above.
I will ask to see the governing document to be sure of their requirements, but it sounds like I may be of some use to them.
24th Feb 2015
Please say you have not filed anything yet and are waiting for those cheques to clear before you do anything?
I think everyone on here is rooting for you Arabita, don’t give in!
You can see plenty of games he will play with these cheques so that it delays payment further.
The signature will be wrong, or the number will be torn off the bottom so it isn’t recognised, the written amount won’t agree to the digits entered, he will have dated it 30/02/2015 or he will have dated it Feb 2014 ‘by accident’, the first cheque will clear then you will then feel guilty/sympathetic to him so file the work and predictably the second cheque will bounce/be cancelled. He won’t turn up with both the cheques but will say they are in the post etc.
There are so many ways he can muck you around with a cheque you really do have to wait until all the money has absolutely cleared your bank before you do anything.
As everyone else above has said, do not do any more work for this client before you receive payment. Think of all the other clients you could have worked on during the time you have spent chasing this one person for payment. If you don’t have that many clients yet, think of all the time you could have spent marketing yourself, doing your improving your skills or just walking the dog to keep yourself relaxed.
12th Feb 2015
Only move if it provides a benefit
We are a £20m+ T/O company with foreign subsidiaries and are served perfectly well by a top 50 firm who are able to handle audit of a group consolidation as well as working with overseas auditors. They also provide tax & payroll services via other parts of their firm with appropriate firewalls in place.
If there is no requirement to use a big 4, or perhaps top 10 firm then I don’t see any reason why you should actively seek to move to one of these. Yes by all means put your audit out to tender to see if the service (and/or fees!) can be improved and include a big4 firm in this process to get a comparison, but unless there is a specific requirement just go with what works best for the business and its shareholders.
Just one thing to note though, which I think is highlighted by Brend201 above, you repeatedly say big 4 have low standards. I seriously doubt it is the case that big4 by default have low standards. There is a huge gulf in size (fee income & partners) between the big 4 and number 5. By sheer volume of work alone the big4 are bound to have a greater number of disciplinary hearings than other firms of the same ‘quality’. Also, as many of their clients are worldwide household names (who incidentally, the argument goes, are so complex that ONLY big4 are large enough to audit their worldwide operations), when things do go wrong they go wrong in a big way and we all hear about it in the national press.
When an audit firm in the 40-50 ranking mucks up an audit, do you get to hear about it? Does it make the national press? Not really, unless you seek out the story or avidly follow accountingweb.
Make a proper assessment of your needs, invite firms to tender and evaluate their offering sensibly. Don’t be led by the press alone.
4th Feb 2015
'Content' production costs?
I know it has been a while since your post, but did you resolve your question? I would be interested to hear what decision you arrived at.
I found this post as I am also looking at the accounting treatment of production costs of video tutorials. In my case all tutorials are to be delivered via a website and not via DVD.
From your original post it is not clear whether the ‘production costs’ you are referring to are the costs of actually filming and editing ‘content’ which can then be sold via DVDs or digitally, or whether you mean the cost to produce a DVD itself. If they are producing the videos (filming, editing etc) themselves (even if they buy in these services) I would say there are two different aspects to consider.
My own gut feeling is that the ‘content’ production costs (camera operators, sound engineers, video editing costs etc) and the resulting tutorials would be intangible assets, the rights of which are owned by the company/sole trader (sole trader in my case) and will go on to provide income for many years to come. As such I would think the production costs should be amortised to the P&L, or written off if they ever become obsolete/out of date and appear to have no on-going value.
If DVDs were held and produced (either blank DVDs or written DVDs with tutorials) these would be treated separately form the ‘content’ production. The DVDs would be held as stock at the lower of cost (either bought in or your own production cost of they are produced in house) or net realisable value.
Is this in line with your treatment?
11th Dec 2014
Thanks to you both.
Yes I agree ‘standard practice’ does not have any impact on what we have agreed, but I was just interested to know whether that is the norm in Switzerland or whether the customer is just spinning me a few fibs.
I shall persevere.
18th Nov 2014
I think it is pretty clear that the statement says 'with iXBRL', where as what you show from IRIS doesn't say that their software offers this at the moment.