Ltd Co profit and loss to be disclosed
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
MaxFromage said:
Eric Mc said:
Maybe it is time that some semblance of third party oversight is brought back for ALL companies. At the moment, it is utter chaos.
I agree and that is what they are trying to propose with Companies House moving from a repository to a gatekeeper. How well that will work is another matter...These days wholly non-compliant (and even illegal) company accounts are filed and accepted at Companies House without any action being taken.
It's very frustrating.
Not convinced about the proposed changes though.
youngsyr said:
I answered this exact same question on this thread at 7.36pm last night.
So your view is that it is overreach because improvements in technology have made it much more easy to get hold of public information? I remember the good old days of looking at microfilms at Companies House when doing research. Especially fun when dealing with firms that where trying to hide things. (I recall a PLC that buried in subsidiary of a subsidiary had a firm that owned the chair's race horses) So if the government said "OK, there is a two day wait until you can download the PDF of the account you have asked to look at" you would be fine with it?
wisbech said:
youngsyr said:
I answered this exact same question on this thread at 7.36pm last night.
So your view is that it is overreach because improvements in technology have made it much more easy to get hold of public information? I remember the good old days of looking at microfilms at Companies House when doing research. Especially fun when dealing with firms that where trying to hide things. (I recall a PLC that buried in subsidiary of a subsidiary had a firm that owned the chair's race horses) So if the government said "OK, there is a two day wait until you can download the PDF of the account you have asked to look at" you would be fine with it?
As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
youngsyr said:
Your argument seems to be that companies aren't regulated enough (like they were back in the good old days, when there were never any frauds or scandals?) and so any additional regulations are a good thing.
Completely nonsensical and even dangerous, IMO.
Some regulation is always necessary. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dangerous fool. At the moment, smaller companies are under virtually under NO regulation (by both design AND by accident) by the very government department that is obliged, by law, to do so.Completely nonsensical and even dangerous, IMO.
youngsyr said:
Why would you propose a measure to go back 20 odd years to approximate how it was before? How about actually improving the system, isn't that what this piece of legislation is supposed to be about?
As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
What's lazy and slap dash about it?As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
Small companies are just as likely to do wrong things as bigger ones. Man up and stand by what you do and what you declare and don't be afraid.
Who said the best disinfectant is sunlight?
youngsyr said:
Why would you propose a measure to go back 20 odd years to approximate how it was before? How about actually improving the system, isn't that what this piece of legislation is supposed to be about?
As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
That's just so weird. Why would you change the last few hundred years of company law by saying that it is companies that have control of who can see their public accounts? Wouldn't that make them private? As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
And what is your definition of legitimate interest? And why would the government, having already said that these records are public, then pass another set of laws defining who can legitimately see them vs those who need to be forbidden access? What if I lend my login ID to some one on the banned list - is that then a criminal or civil matter?
Say I was looking to contract with a builder for an extension. Is that a legitimate reason to want to see their public records, that they don't have a history of liquidated firms behind them? And what if I am lying, that I am an accountant looking for business development and want to pitch local firms, or is that legitimate? What in your view is illegitimate viewing?
wisbech said:
youngsyr said:
Why would you propose a measure to go back 20 odd years to approximate how it was before? How about actually improving the system, isn't that what this piece of legislation is supposed to be about?
As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
That's just so weird. Why would you change the last few hundred years of company law by saying that it is companies that have control of who can see their public accounts? Wouldn't that make them private? As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
And what is your definition of legitimate interest? And why would the government, having already said that these records are public, then pass another set of laws defining who can legitimately see them vs those who need to be forbidden access? What if I lend my login ID to some one on the banned list - is that then a criminal or civil matter?
Say I was looking to contract with a builder for an extension. Is that a legitimate reason to want to see their public records, that they don't have a history of liquidated firms behind them? And what if I am lying, that I am an accountant looking for business development and want to pitch local firms, or is that legitimate? What in your view is illegitimate viewing?
A legitimate party would be a government, academic, polling or similar body that has a legitimate interest in seeing all P&Ls. They would be given blanket access.
Everyone else, including you as the builder's customer, would have to ask the company for access.
Illegitimate acces is not possible other than by fraud: either you are an approved legitimate user or you've been given access by the company concerned.
If someone nicks your login etc, how is that any different now to the HMRC online portal for example, where you can see and alter a company's tax returns and information with just a login and password?
And again you're trotting out the law and history as support for your argument, when until this law was passed, the law and (recent) history made the P&Ls private!!!!
Eric Mc said:
youngsyr said:
Why would you propose a measure to go back 20 odd years to approximate how it was before? How about actually improving the system, isn't that what this piece of legislation is supposed to be about?
As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
What's lazy and slap dash about it?As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
Small companies are just as likely to do wrong things as bigger ones. Man up and stand by what you do and what you declare and don't be afraid.
Who said the best disinfectant is sunlight?
After all, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant"!
youngsyr said:
And again you're trotting out the law and history as support for your argument, when until this law was passed, the law and (recent) history made the P&Ls private!!!!
Um, no, back in the early 1990's I used to go to Companies house and look at the accounts, and then get copies of the more interesting ones. So they were never private. You didn't need permission to see them.Why should companies be allowed to decide who sees their public information?
(I also think personal tax returns should be public, as they are in Norway)
wisbech said:
Um, no, back in the early 1990's I used to go to Companies house and look at the accounts, and then get copies of the more interesting ones. So they were never private. You didn't need permission to see them.
Why should companies be allowed to decide who sees their public information?
(I also think personal tax returns should be public, as they are in Norway)
If personal tax return is going to be public, then also like Norway I want a personal tax deduction based on debt interest. Highly doubt that happens though 😉Why should companies be allowed to decide who sees their public information?
(I also think personal tax returns should be public, as they are in Norway)
wisbech said:
youngsyr said:
And again you're trotting out the law and history as support for your argument, when until this law was passed, the law and (recent) history made the P&Ls private!!!!
Um, no, back in the early 1990's I used to go to Companies house and look at the accounts, and then get copies of the more interesting ones. So they were never private. You didn't need permission to see them.Why should companies be allowed to decide who sees their public information?
(I also think personal tax returns should be public, as they are in Norway)
youngsyr said:
Eric Mc said:
youngsyr said:
Why would you propose a measure to go back 20 odd years to approximate how it was before? How about actually improving the system, isn't that what this piece of legislation is supposed to be about?
As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
What's lazy and slap dash about it?As I wrote above, I would suggest making legitimate parties register online with companies house before being given immediate access to the information that they have a legitimate interest in.
And allow companies themselves to authorise parties directly via the companies house website to view their full or part of their accounts.
That would be a solution fit for the 21st century rather than this lazy, slap dash approach.
Small companies are just as likely to do wrong things as bigger ones. Man up and stand by what you do and what you declare and don't be afraid.
Who said the best disinfectant is sunlight?
After all, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant"!
Eric Mc said:
You need to understand the ethos behind running businesses within the protection of limited liability.
The original legislation dates back to the 19th century. The core idea behind this legislation was, and to a large extent still is, to encourage entrepreneurship by removing some of the risk associated with running a business by limiting the liability of investors - but at the same time placing some obligations on the owners (shareholders) and managers (directors) of these limited companies.
One of the key aspects of these rules, in their original form, was the these limited companies were obliged to place their annual accounts (as well as other business information) on the public record.
During the Thatcher era, as part of the general ethos of that time, some changes were made which reduced these disclosure requirements. It was also made much easier for smaller and smaller entities (right down to single individuals) to set up and run limited companies. This had not been the case in previous eras. The relaxation of these rather tight rules resulted in an explosion of limited companies with many "one man band" operations being admitted into the limited liability sphere.
I see the current legislative changes as a return to some of the original thinking behind what limited companies are and what they are for - and a reminder to directors that running a limited company is NOT just an upgrade to being a sole trader.
I don't disagree with anything you said and its insightful to know but to be frank the whole system is a sThe original legislation dates back to the 19th century. The core idea behind this legislation was, and to a large extent still is, to encourage entrepreneurship by removing some of the risk associated with running a business by limiting the liability of investors - but at the same time placing some obligations on the owners (shareholders) and managers (directors) of these limited companies.
One of the key aspects of these rules, in their original form, was the these limited companies were obliged to place their annual accounts (as well as other business information) on the public record.
During the Thatcher era, as part of the general ethos of that time, some changes were made which reduced these disclosure requirements. It was also made much easier for smaller and smaller entities (right down to single individuals) to set up and run limited companies. This had not been the case in previous eras. The relaxation of these rather tight rules resulted in an explosion of limited companies with many "one man band" operations being admitted into the limited liability sphere.
I see the current legislative changes as a return to some of the original thinking behind what limited companies are and what they are for - and a reminder to directors that running a limited company is NOT just an upgrade to being a sole trader.
t show.HMRC and CH have bigger fish to fry and this quite frankly does nothing to resolve that situation.
This again in typical fashion aggrieves the usual good bunch and the con men/women are left to crack on.
I’m slightly stunned at this thread. Or maybe, knowing PH, I shouldn’t be.
I read Law at university before going in Accountancy and at one of those junctures it was drummed into us that “the price of limited liability status is disclosure”.
Allowing people to limit personal liability via corporate entities has arguably been the single greatest tool driving modern economic development. But if abused it’s also capable of imposing enormous costs on society, hence the quid pro quo on disclosure.
It’s really quite simple- if you don’t like the idea of disclosure you don’t have to do it. Just don’t incorporate and bear the liabilities yourself. If you’re not willing to bear the liabilities then…
And if you think that’s unrealistic: when I was in practice we had a client with a business turning over multiples of hundreds of millions of pounds, very much now in the public eye, who didn’t want to incorporate because he didn’t want the public exposure. So he was one of, if not the, largest UK sole trader and bore the liabilities himself.
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
I read Law at university before going in Accountancy and at one of those junctures it was drummed into us that “the price of limited liability status is disclosure”.
Allowing people to limit personal liability via corporate entities has arguably been the single greatest tool driving modern economic development. But if abused it’s also capable of imposing enormous costs on society, hence the quid pro quo on disclosure.
It’s really quite simple- if you don’t like the idea of disclosure you don’t have to do it. Just don’t incorporate and bear the liabilities yourself. If you’re not willing to bear the liabilities then…
And if you think that’s unrealistic: when I was in practice we had a client with a business turning over multiples of hundreds of millions of pounds, very much now in the public eye, who didn’t want to incorporate because he didn’t want the public exposure. So he was one of, if not the, largest UK sole trader and bore the liabilities himself.
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Countdown said:
file accurate accounts at Companies House.
I wonder what proportion are actually accurate? 5-10% maybe?
Berger 3rd said:
What are you saying isn’t accurate, the figures? In which case isn’t that HMRCs job, not CH? And how many companies use an accountant? Presumably more than 5-10%? So you’re essentially saying a huge percentage of accountants are bent?
I’m just saying that in real life nearly all company results are manipulated to serve a purpose. Motivation can be to reduce profits to reduce tax, increase profits in preparation for sale or to fool the market. Or…just plain ineptitude.
Or, looking at it another way an SME’s profit is just the money the owners decide to leave in the business. (If trading well).
I was part owner of a company that needed to show a net worth of £400,000 to be able to get on certain tender lists. Not one penny more was left in the company. Come month 12 we had a right good share out.
I was part owner of a company that needed to show a net worth of £400,000 to be able to get on certain tender lists. Not one penny more was left in the company. Come month 12 we had a right good share out.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff