Freelance IT consulting and tax - a question or two



You don't seem to understand basic logic.
<illogical>A cow has four legs therefore everything with four legs is a cow</illogical>

It's a question and is simple to understand.
--
Peter Saxton from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Peter Saxton" wrote

That's not relevant to what I said. However, what you said can be paraphrased :-
<illogical> Millennia are consecutive. The millennia in my list are consecutive, so my list is "correct". The millennia in your list are also consecutive, so your list is "wrong". </illogical>

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Well I don't know exactly when years were first considered to be "AD" (they certainly weren't before around 30 AD!), so let's suppose 100 AD was the first time the letters "AD" were used. In that case, the "1st millenium AD" may have been :-
17th July 100 AD to 16th July 1100 AD.
Do you happen to know when the letters "AD" *were* first used?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are arguing and avoiding the questions for the sake of it.
Please take this to some other newsgroup. I'm not interested.
--
Peter Saxton from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Peter Saxton" wrote

I didn't avoid the question - I actually answered it, to the best of my ability!
"Peter Saxton" wrote

A sign of someone who has just realised that they have been wrong all along!
I'll take that as your admission that you've just realised that your statement "...the start of the new millenium was 1 January 2001" was not necessarily correct.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... "Peter Saxton" wrote

Ah, good - so you finally agree that it is only **your view**, rather than "fact".
That's better!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is your definition of a fact?
--
Peter Saxton from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Something that can be demonstrated to be true is a fact.
You can't demonstrate that "the start of the new millenium was 1 January 2001" without having an authoritative definition of "millennium" (as I said at the top of the thread).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is the 1st millenium AD?
--
Peter Saxton from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Peter Saxton" wrote

What is the millennium ending at the end of the "nineteen-nineties"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It looks like that whenever you realise I've shown how obvious it is that you are wrong you ignore the question and ask a question of your own.
I am taking your refusal to answer my question as the end of this.
--
Peter Saxton from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Peter Saxton" wrote

You seem to think that the current calendar started on 1 January 1 AD. But it didn't!
Your question is just as irrelevant to the issue as my question.
"Peter Saxton" wrote

See other post if you really want an answer. But it is irrelevant to the issue!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:23:40 GMT, Ronald Raygun

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.
--
Peter Saxton from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where it says "accounts which ... comply with wider accounting standards", it doesn't mean abbreviated statutory accounts, does it?

"Peter Saxton" wrote

So you agree that "wider standards accounts" do *not* include the abbreviated statutory accounts (which *are* detailed in statutes)!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't seem to be understanding what is written. These "wider accounting standards" require extra information not less. You can't have an accounting standard overruling statute.
--
Peter Saxton from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Eh? That bit doesn't answer my questions!
"Peter Saxton" wrote

Exactly! The quote you gave says absolutely *nothing* about *abbreviated* accounts.
It doesn't say that, whenever it just says "statutory accounts", it means "full" statutory accounts. It certainly doesn't say that abbreviated accounts are not the "statutory" ones. It doesn't say that "full" statutory accounts have to be prepared as well, if a small company decides to abbreviate its statutory accounts.
So why quote that part in answer to my questions?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Saxton wrote:

If no statute requires companies to produce accounts which comply with these "wider standards", then what does? If nothing, then why mention them?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:25:54 GMT, Ronald Raygun

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 from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Doesn't it have anything which mentions abbreviated accounts?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 www.frc.org.uk
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 from London
snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.