I have worked in 3 practices over 20 years, and its been the norm. If an audit was being done, the first thing you check is that the opening balances on the new year's general ledger match the closing software TB on file. Plus, most of the time, the year end has been run by the time the journals are given. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter as long as the system is right, but this is the way everyone I know does it. And my clients that come in from other accountants have the same situation.

I might also add that we only provide balance sheet journals - the balancing figure of which goes to the profit and loss account (3200 on sage) to match that to the final accounts prepared on accounts production software.  The only time a journal hits the P&L is when its a prepayment or accrual reversal or some adjustment that needs to effect the current year P&L (and I always give this as a second journal, to be posted after the year end journals have been posted, as it again keeps things very clear).

Also, when posting the bookkeeping TB into the accounts production software, some codes will get posted together (think 10 purchase codes posted as one figure in the accounts, think other creditors, think postage and stationery, think all the VAT accounts in Sage) so the accountants final TB doesn't match the bookkeeping software code for code.  So when the client inadvertently creates a prior year adjustment, we use their original TB to spot the difference, rather than having to unpick all the accounts production codes - this saves time in trying to discover which code has the error in it, and so saves the client fees.  Indeed some clients have hundreds of codes, so it can get messy.

Its true some clients do like every journal posting into the P&L on 31.03.13 but I have only met one in my entire career.  "one accountant who gets me to post them on the last day, which is confusing, but he's always insistent on this so that what I do for that one only." This is how most clients feel, and the client comes first, not the accountant, not the software bods.

I think the other thing to consider is that there are accountants out there, who don't actually have a good knowledge of every bookkeeping system on the market, indeed a fair few were still using written ledgers to prepare accounts until the introduction of IXBRL a few years back.  For me, if something goes wrong on Sage, I can find it pretty quickly, using that original balance as a guide... but in Quickbooks, it just takes me forever.  So using this system, keeps things a little simpler across the board.   It negates one step in the identifying process - one which can be a very big step on a large system.

Hi Jeremy

As stated, there is no wrong or right way. I have used this system for 15 years (first 5 years were doing sh*t detail!), as have many other accountants I know, and everybody has been happy, no issues, client gets it, I get it. Nobody has been hurt, nobody has been confused, the HMRC and Companies House accounts have been correct. So it cant be *wrong*, it is just *one way* of doing things.

That's not to say doing things your way would not have produced the same result, its just *another way* of doing things. You might notice that instead of attacking your way, I have only defended my own, as well as defended the client who gets confused when things that don't NEED to be changed, are forced upon them by someone's difference in opinion.

My way is one my clients are happy with, one we can fix very quickly in the event of issues because we both understand it. If a client came to me who used your way, I would happily continue with that... the only time there is confusion is when someone comes along and starts trying to change something that aint broke. If the client is happy and the system is correct, it doesnt really matters which way it gets done. Its completely acceptable to go with preference.