I can't get my accountant to do straight line depreciation on IT hardware as I believe is normal. The problem comes when you wish to close down the company and they have done reducing balance. They try to say that they only do reducing balance. Can the director insist on a particular depreciation scheme? I seem to have the most unreasonable accountant and it feels like they are trying to make the accounts more difficult to close down.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Depreciation of IT hardware reducing balance?
Collapse
X
-
-
Your accountant works for you. If they aren't doing the job, find one who will.First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. But Gandhi never had to deal with HMRC -
Depreciation
What's their reasoning behind the depreciation policy? This is the decision of the directors and the accountants are there to advise as RonBW says. Do you have a significant level of kit?Comment
-
The decision on depreciation is yours. As the director of the company it is your responsibility to decide how quickly those assets are likely to lose value and the depreciation policy should reflect that.
If you are looking to purchase assets from your company as part of the closure process then you would need to consider an approximate market value of those assets which may not be equal or even similar to the value declared in the accounts.
It may also be necessary to consider balancing charges when disposing of assets and any balancing charges would be calculated by reference to the WDV of the assets for capital gains purposes versus the value realised on disposal.Comment
-
Two thoughts:
1) whilst yes, it's strictly the directors who should basically choose everything, the accountant can make recommendations. It may be that this recommendation is to make their life easier (ie that's just how they do it)...but then it can be a bit of a game of chicken. Maybe if you push them hard enough they'll do it straight line, maybe they won't. If they don't, will you suck it up, or will you move firm.
From our perspective we're the other way. Basically FreeAgent does things straight line, so if hypothetically a client really wanted it done reducing balance, every year we'd need to manually remove the straight line depreciation, do our own calculations, and manually enter them. In practice that's more effort than it's worth, and if a client was insistent, then they'd end up looking for another accountancy firm and/or bookkeeping packages.
Yes, the customer's always right, but also bear in mind if a customer is doing what the supplier considers to be ridiculous and makes them not commercially viable to retain as a customer, the supplier may tell them where to go. Whether or not you're bothered about that risk is up to you. A case of picking your battles I guess.
2) Does it matter?! If you're looking to close, then the depreciation policy to date is basically irrelevant. If any fixed assets do realistically have a market value, that's what you should be paying the company for them (or of course sell to an independent third party via eBay/whatever) and there'll be a gain/loss on disposal, which will basically overwrite and depreciation. It may be that the assets realistically have a negligible value, in which case you'll just scrap them. From an accounting perspective, this means a loss on disposal of whatever the NBV was. So again, depreciation to that point becomes irrelevant, a higher/lower depreciation policy just means you have a lower/higher loss on disposal.Comment
-
Reasoning
Originally posted by Darren at DynamoAccounts View PostWhat's their reasoning behind the depreciation policy? This is the decision of the directors and the accountants are there to advise as RonBW says. Do you have a significant level of kit?Comment
-
straight line
I think FreeAgent is more sensible when most modern assets depreciate very quickly and become worthless. Reducing balance leaves you with always having to dispose of assets. I can't imagine that is helpful from an admin point of view. I am not trading and have stopped the contract. This is the last year end so I don't have much bargaining power. I hoped that they could do it manually and apply a correction. It is now over 3 years old so would have depreciated to almost zero under most straight line rates.
Originally posted by Maslins View PostTwo thoughts:
1) whilst yes, it's strictly the directors who should basically choose everything, the accountant can make recommendations. It may be that this recommendation is to make their life easier (ie that's just how they do it)...but then it can be a bit of a game of chicken. Maybe if you push them hard enough they'll do it straight line, maybe they won't. If they don't, will you suck it up, or will you move firm.
From our perspective we're the other way. Basically FreeAgent does things straight line, so if hypothetically a client really wanted it done reducing balance, every year we'd need to manually remove the straight line depreciation, do our own calculations, and manually enter them. In practice that's more effort than it's worth, and if a client was insistent, then they'd end up looking for another accountancy firm and/or bookkeeping packages.
Yes, the customer's always right, but also bear in mind if a customer is doing what the supplier considers to be ridiculous and makes them not commercially viable to retain as a customer, the supplier may tell them where to go. Whether or not you're bothered about that risk is up to you. A case of picking your battles I guess.
2) Does it matter?! If you're looking to close, then the depreciation policy to date is basically irrelevant. If any fixed assets do realistically have a market value, that's what you should be paying the company for them (or of course sell to an independent third party via eBay/whatever) and there'll be a gain/loss on disposal, which will basically overwrite and depreciation. It may be that the assets realistically have a negligible value, in which case you'll just scrap them. From an accounting perspective, this means a loss on disposal of whatever the NBV was. So again, depreciation to that point becomes irrelevant, a higher/lower depreciation policy just means you have a lower/higher loss on disposal.Comment
-
balancing charges
If I close the company next year, and I can show the assets have completely depreciated and I have no profits or dividends for that year then I was hoping to avoid paying any balancing charges...
Originally posted by Patrick@Intouch View PostThe decision on depreciation is yours. As the director of the company it is your responsibility to decide how quickly those assets are likely to lose value and the depreciation policy should reflect that.
If you are looking to purchase assets from your company as part of the closure process then you would need to consider an approximate market value of those assets which may not be equal or even similar to the value declared in the accounts.
It may also be necessary to consider balancing charges when disposing of assets and any balancing charges would be calculated by reference to the WDV of the assets for capital gains purposes versus the value realised on disposal.Comment
-
looking to close
I think that I may close next year or may start trading again. If I close in the future and the value of the assets has reduced properly then there are less balancing payments when the assets are disposed of. If they have depreciated to zero then perhaps this will be easier to do.
Originally posted by Maslins View PostTwo thoughts:
1) whilst yes, it's strictly the directors who should basically choose everything, the accountant can make recommendations. It may be that this recommendation is to make their life easier (ie that's just how they do it)...but then it can be a bit of a game of chicken. Maybe if you push them hard enough they'll do it straight line, maybe they won't. If they don't, will you suck it up, or will you move firm.
From our perspective we're the other way. Basically FreeAgent does things straight line, so if hypothetically a client really wanted it done reducing balance, every year we'd need to manually remove the straight line depreciation, do our own calculations, and manually enter them. In practice that's more effort than it's worth, and if a client was insistent, then they'd end up looking for another accountancy firm and/or bookkeeping packages.
Yes, the customer's always right, but also bear in mind if a customer is doing what the supplier considers to be ridiculous and makes them not commercially viable to retain as a customer, the supplier may tell them where to go. Whether or not you're bothered about that risk is up to you. A case of picking your battles I guess.
2) Does it matter?! If you're looking to close, then the depreciation policy to date is basically irrelevant. If any fixed assets do realistically have a market value, that's what you should be paying the company for them (or of course sell to an independent third party via eBay/whatever) and there'll be a gain/loss on disposal, which will basically overwrite and depreciation. It may be that the assets realistically have a negligible value, in which case you'll just scrap them. From an accounting perspective, this means a loss on disposal of whatever the NBV was. So again, depreciation to that point becomes irrelevant, a higher/lower depreciation policy just means you have a lower/higher loss on disposal.Comment
-
Assets
Originally posted by Jcochr View PostIf I close the company next year, and I can show the assets have completely depreciated and I have no profits or dividends for that year then I was hoping to avoid paying any balancing charges...Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment