Ltd Co profit and loss to be disclosed
Discussion
I don’t think I’ve seen it posted on here yet, the new economic crime and corporate transparency act requires companies to file their P&L with companies house which will be publicly available.
I’m not sure when this will come in but I don’t think it will be years off and I can’t see it being reversed.
Talking to our clients and there’s a fair amount who aren’t happy about the changes.
I’m not sure when this will come in but I don’t think it will be years off and I can’t see it being reversed.
Talking to our clients and there’s a fair amount who aren’t happy about the changes.
Edited by Puzzles on Thursday 9th November 19:29
Puzzles said:
Talking to our clients and there’s a fair amount who aren’t happy about the changes.
I don't understand why they would be.Customers and clients that are prone to enquire would likely require sight of P&L as part to the bid process. Those that aren't wouldn't bother looking.
Whilst micro and small companies will now have to file their P&L, they are keeping their options open as to whether it remains public. The new law permits the Secretary of State to use secondary legislation to keep the P&L for micro and small entities private - so only Companies House would have access (see the new Section 468A of CA06).
It's not clear how this would work in practice (or even if they will take up the option) - I suspect it might require filing of versions with and without the P&L, otherwise CH would have to redact the relevant parts somehow.
It's not clear how this would work in practice (or even if they will take up the option) - I suspect it might require filing of versions with and without the P&L, otherwise CH would have to redact the relevant parts somehow.
StevieBee said:
Puzzles said:
Talking to our clients and there’s a fair amount who aren’t happy about the changes.
I don't understand why they would be.Customers and clients that are prone to enquire would likely require sight of P&L as part to the bid process. Those that aren't wouldn't bother looking.
gf5mez said:
Whilst micro and small companies will now have to file their P&L, they are keeping their options open as to whether it remains public. The new law permits the Secretary of State to use secondary legislation to keep the P&L for micro and small entities private - so only Companies House would have access (see the new Section 468A of CA06).
It's not clear how this would work in practice (or even if they will take up the option) - I suspect it might require filing of versions with and without the P&L, otherwise CH would have to redact the relevant parts somehow.
It was my understanding they wanted to have the information disclosed so stakeholders could make better decisions, such as lenders/creditors for determining the creditworthiness of small businesses. They seem to think this is holding back growth. It's not clear how this would work in practice (or even if they will take up the option) - I suspect it might require filing of versions with and without the P&L, otherwise CH would have to redact the relevant parts somehow.
We’ll see how it pans out but I can’t see CH taking a sophisticated approach, redacting information, providing different levels of information etc.
Edited by Puzzles on Friday 10th November 09:36
Puzzles said:
gf5mez said:
Whilst micro and small companies will now have to file their P&L, they are keeping their options open as to whether it remains public. The new law permits the Secretary of State to use secondary legislation to keep the P&L for micro and small entities private - so only Companies House would have access (see the new Section 468A of CA06).
It's not clear how this would work in practice (or even if they will take up the option) - I suspect it might require filing of versions with and without the P&L, otherwise CH would have to redact the relevant parts somehow.
It was my understanding they wanted to have the information disclosed so stakeholders could make better decisions, such as lenders/creditors for determining the creditworthiness of small businesses. They seem to think this is holding back growth. It's not clear how this would work in practice (or even if they will take up the option) - I suspect it might require filing of versions with and without the P&L, otherwise CH would have to redact the relevant parts somehow.
It was always a requirement for any company to file a P&L with HMRC every year.
I haven't seen a genuine explanation as to why forcing every company to publish one for everyone to see adds anything other than a lack of privacy to company owners.
The cynic in me sees this as just another attack on contractors who use limited companies as part of their tax planning - it essentially makes them publish their annual income for all to see.
To give some context this would be bad for me, I run a small limited, but we go up against huge companies. For many this isn’t a problem, but the larger companies we go up against will always use our size as a means to scare customers who they know are considering using us. We’re profit making, but they aren’t huge sums in the grand scheme of things, especially when stacked against a PLC. Ultimately if we have to lay bare more figures, in the most part it will be bad for us and give our competitors more ammunition with which to scare customers
FWIW I’ve never had a customer ask us for our P&L, but no doubt plenty have looked at our accounts on the recommendation of a larger company and made a decision based on us being smaller.
FWIW I’ve never had a customer ask us for our P&L, but no doubt plenty have looked at our accounts on the recommendation of a larger company and made a decision based on us being smaller.
youngsyr said:
Puzzles said:
gf5mez said:
Whilst micro and small companies will now have to file their P&L, they are keeping their options open as to whether it remains public. The new law permits the Secretary of State to use secondary legislation to keep the P&L for micro and small entities private - so only Companies House would have access (see the new Section 468A of CA06).
It's not clear how this would work in practice (or even if they will take up the option) - I suspect it might require filing of versions with and without the P&L, otherwise CH would have to redact the relevant parts somehow.
It was my understanding they wanted to have the information disclosed so stakeholders could make better decisions, such as lenders/creditors for determining the creditworthiness of small businesses. They seem to think this is holding back growth. It's not clear how this would work in practice (or even if they will take up the option) - I suspect it might require filing of versions with and without the P&L, otherwise CH would have to redact the relevant parts somehow.
It was always a requirement for any company to file a P&L with HMRC every year.
I haven't seen a genuine explanation as to why forcing every company to publish one for everyone to see adds anything other than a lack of privacy to company owners.
The cynic in me sees this as just another attack on contractors who use limited companies as part of their tax planning - it essentially makes them publish their annual income for all to see.
With the tax benefits of Ltd Co reduced and now this I wonder if many will go back to being a sole trader.
Yes it's a bit of a pain from a contractor pov as your financial details will be out there, the government say that is the price for limited liability but you wouldn't want your personal tax return on view, as one of my contractors said.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/economi...
Berger 3rd said:
To give some context this would be bad for me, I run a small limited, but we go up against huge companies. For many this isn’t a problem, but the larger companies we go up against will always use our size as a means to scare customers who they know are considering using us. We’re profit making, but they aren’t huge sums in the grand scheme of things, especially when stacked against a PLC. Ultimately if we have to lay bare more figures, in the most part it will be bad for us and give our competitors more ammunition with which to scare customers
FWIW I’ve never had a customer ask us for our P&L, but no doubt plenty have looked at our accounts on the recommendation of a larger company and made a decision based on us being smaller.
Surely your Balance Sheet will indicate your company is small? Therefore, disclosing the P&L makes no difference.FWIW I’ve never had a customer ask us for our P&L, but no doubt plenty have looked at our accounts on the recommendation of a larger company and made a decision based on us being smaller.
Puzzles said:
It was my understanding they wanted to have the information disclosed so stakeholders could make better decisions, such as lenders/creditors for determining the creditworthiness of small businesses. They seem to think this is holding back growth.
We’ll see how it pans out but I can’t see CH taking a sophisticated approach, redacting information, providing different levels of information etc.
I think this provision in 468A was a quite late addition to the bill - certainly though the original intention was as you describe.We’ll see how it pans out but I can’t see CH taking a sophisticated approach, redacting information, providing different levels of information etc.
Edited by Puzzles on Friday 10th November 09:36
youngsyr said:
Lenders and creditors could always demand to see a P&L before entering any agreement.
It was always a requirement for any company to file a P&L with HMRC every year.
I haven't seen a genuine explanation as to why forcing every company to publish one for everyone to see adds anything other than a lack of privacy to company owners.
The cynic in me sees this as just another attack on contractors who use limited companies as part of their tax planning - it essentially makes them publish their annual income for all to see.
If people want privacy, they can carry on business as sole traders -- or through unlimited companies.It was always a requirement for any company to file a P&L with HMRC every year.
I haven't seen a genuine explanation as to why forcing every company to publish one for everyone to see adds anything other than a lack of privacy to company owners.
The cynic in me sees this as just another attack on contractors who use limited companies as part of their tax planning - it essentially makes them publish their annual income for all to see.
If people want the privilege of limited liability they should accept that comes at a price.
Accounts without a P&L are largely meaningless as they do not show whether the company is profitable or not. Letting some companies not file a P&L was a serious mistake long overdue for reversal.
MaxFromage said:
I can see both sides of the argument for showing profits. However I think in reality, it'll be a little bit pointless in terms of stopping fraud. The one concern for some clients is giving away their margins to larger competitors, along with a few other indicators.
I agree, I worked for a company where we entered in to bids to sell a product, the owner used to file inflated figures to ensure the accounts looked right in years where he knew it would be an issue - it just pushed the fraud elsewhere.I have ran a ltd company for 8-9 years and i have always thought it was not right to have accounts public, I started straight into ecommerce with competitors in the USA, They could see everything filed with companies house and i had no insight into there accounts.
Now most online businesses are selling globally, are UK companies at a disadvantage?
Now most online businesses are selling globally, are UK companies at a disadvantage?
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff