Freelance IT consulting and tax - a question or two

If no statute requires companies to produce accounts which comply with these "wider standards", then what does? If nothing, then why mention them?

It was a quote from a book. The sentence was important. I posted as much as I could which related to statutory accounts.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Would you care to point them out, because I haven't noticed them!

In fact, have any of your quotes included the word "abbreviated" at all?

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Doesn't it have anything which mentions abbreviated accounts?

Tim

Contact Companies House and ask them to discuss what you are not satisfied with.

I've said that before. Read the abbreviated accounts they say that they have been prepared from the full statutory accounts. If you are not happy then contact Companies House.

I don't know about you, but to me the notion of "abbreviated" suggests that there must first exist something which is then subjected to a process of abbreviation, of excising unnecessary detail, and it is this process which produces the "abbreviated accounts" from accounts, the existence of which is implied, which are in some way less brief.

Thus it ought to be impossible to produce "abbreviated accounts" directly without first producing a more detailed set of accounts which are then made more brief.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

That "un-abbreviated something" doesn't actually need to exist beforehand. Consider someone who invents a new acronym; they may *later* decide on a list of words which, when taking each one's first letter, produce the previously invented acronym.

Did they need to know the list of words, to invent the acronym?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Well, it *is* possible to produce "abbreviated accounts" without first producing "full accounts" (by going straight from the books to the abbreviated a/c's), so do you think that the word used in the Companies Act should have been something other than "abbreviated"?

Ronald

I'd give up on trying to discuss logic with Tim. He seems to have got into one of his "argue at all costs" moods.

The only valid point he may have is the use of the word "statutory". As I've tried to explain to him, statutory cannot be a satisfactory adjective to provide a definition. I think it was in place when there were no such thing as abbreviated accounts and so usage hasn't changed.

Yes.

There's no point quoting it because you'd still argue.

I've already refered to Companies having to do A and allowed to do B but you take that as can do B but do not have to do A.

Here's Companies House website:

"2. What does a set of accounts include?

Generally, accounts must include:

a profit and loss account (or income and expenditure account if the company is not trading for profit); a balance sheet signed by a director; an auditors' report signed by the auditor (if appropriate); a directors' report signed by a director or the secretary of the company; notes to the accounts; and group accounts (if appropriate). for financial years beginning on or after 1 April 2005, the directors of a quoted company (defined below) are also required to prepare an operating and financial review signed by a director or secretary. In this case, the auditors? report must give an opinion on the information in the report. For further information regarding the Operating and Financial Review Reporting Standard, please visit the Financial Reporting Council?s website at

This booklet cannot go into the detailed information that these documents must contain - for this see the Companies Act. Certain information may be omitted from the accounts of medium-sized and small (including very small and dormant) companies prepared under the special provisions of part VII of the Act. These companies may further abbreviate the accounts they file at Companies House"

"Peter Saxton" wrote

I don't think they'll be interested in the fact that you won't answer a simple question! [That's the only thing I'm "not satisfied with" here.]

"Peter Saxton" wrote

No they don't!

"Peter Saxton" wrote

I know - you keep saying this, but haven't shown any reference that says it!

"Peter Saxton" wrote

That's because you haven't produced a reference which un-ambiguously shows this to be untrue...

Yes.

One definition is:

"an abbreviation consisting of the first letters of each word in the name of something, pronounced as a word"

It consists of the first letters of words so there has to be the words first.

What does abbreviated mean?

If you don't think I've wasted enough time on your little games here then you'll have to get your satisfaction in more normal ways.

Financial statements then.

If you don't like the term statutory accounts don't use it.

If you want a reference ask Companies House. If you want to waste time then waste your own time.

And why is it such a long word ?

As I understand the definition of anacronym, yes they did. They don't need to know the list before inventing the catchy term, but until they do it's only a catchy term, and not an acronym.

It's arguable whether it's an acronym even then, but if we allow it to be called one once the list to go with it has also been invented, then it boils down to the full accounts still needing to exist in order for the "abbreviated accounts" to deserve their name. These full accounts *could* be produced later, but must be such that, when abbreviated using the usual procedure, they come out as indistinguishable from the pre-produced "abbreviated" ones.

Until the full accounts exist, even if produced later, the directly produced "abbreviated" ones are as fake as the pre-invented "acronym".

That rather depends on what the legislative intention was.

If the act intends to permit the direct production of what we might call "short form" accounts, then yes, they should not have used the term "abbreviated". But why should we (you) presume that that is what it intends? These acts aren't drafted by morons, you know [do I really mean that?], and terms used are generally chosen carefully and deliberately and not haphazardly, and chances are that if it says "abbreviated", then it intends that, as Peter implies (or even asserts), that "un-abbreviated" accounts should also (and preferably first) exist.

That should be obvious. It's because the process of abbreviating is itself long and laborious. It's not all that quick and easy to convert the gory details into an executive summary which tells essentially the same story.

'Tis

Abbreviated accounts is good. The problem is with "statutory" accounts. This wasn't a problem when the there was only one statutory requirement for accounts. The problem occurred when exceptions and abbreviations came along.

Although "statutory" isn't a good term it is in general usage. Similarly like the start of the new millenium was 1 January 2001 but most people meant 1 January 2000.