My accountant has just prepared my first set of annual accounts and company tax return, and sent it to me for signing (along with a nice disclaimer telling me 'on my head be it', *nervous laugh*). This is all new to me, and I bet many contractors (I have a few I know in mind just trust their accountant and sign on the dotted line, but seeing as the buck stops here I felt compelled to go through and try to make sense of it all.
To cut a long story short, I had a chat with my accountant as some of the figures and dates were approximate, and notably he was estimating some of my expenses and I was concerned they may be higher than actually incurred. It seems though that it's common for them to estimate such things with a standard approach taking into account the type and size of company, and I understand that higher expenses means lower profit and thus lower tax so I'm not looking to pare back those figures for the sake of it, but nor do I want to risk future trouble because things weren't quite right.
So my question is whether this approach is normal practice, or otherwise are we expected to aim for complete accuracy with a paper trail to prove it all? I can well imagine some folk playing very fast and loose with the rules but that's not the way I generally do things! My accountant's view though seemed to be that I shouldn't worry and should just trust them as the experts, especially where everything is within the typical ranges for a company of relatively small value (and where it owes money to me as director rather than vice versa).
The accountants came highly recommended and I'm happy that they have plenty of experience so I'm not questioning that - it's probably just beginner's nerves really as I don't like the thought of being clobbered with a big bill (or worse) later down the line if it turns out something was incorrect or deemed to be misrepresented. Hence, any views from the worldy wise contractors out there would be welcome, so that I can perhaps feel justified in either signing or raking things up further as appropriate.
Thanks in advance...
To cut a long story short, I had a chat with my accountant as some of the figures and dates were approximate, and notably he was estimating some of my expenses and I was concerned they may be higher than actually incurred. It seems though that it's common for them to estimate such things with a standard approach taking into account the type and size of company, and I understand that higher expenses means lower profit and thus lower tax so I'm not looking to pare back those figures for the sake of it, but nor do I want to risk future trouble because things weren't quite right.
So my question is whether this approach is normal practice, or otherwise are we expected to aim for complete accuracy with a paper trail to prove it all? I can well imagine some folk playing very fast and loose with the rules but that's not the way I generally do things! My accountant's view though seemed to be that I shouldn't worry and should just trust them as the experts, especially where everything is within the typical ranges for a company of relatively small value (and where it owes money to me as director rather than vice versa).
The accountants came highly recommended and I'm happy that they have plenty of experience so I'm not questioning that - it's probably just beginner's nerves really as I don't like the thought of being clobbered with a big bill (or worse) later down the line if it turns out something was incorrect or deemed to be misrepresented. Hence, any views from the worldy wise contractors out there would be welcome, so that I can perhaps feel justified in either signing or raking things up further as appropriate.
Thanks in advance...
Comment