Profit - The Book-keepers Forum (UK)

justme0316 · Member

Profit

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

This answer is peculiar to the self employed (for incorporated entities taxation is a balance sheet liability matched to a P&L distribution similar in some ways to a dividend (it's not ever an expense)).

Anyway, for the non incorporated entity which is your scenario where tax is on the individual, not the business as such (self employed tax being collected through self assessment) the figure carried over to the the balance sheet will exclude any adjustment for tax.

Also worth pointing out here that the profit is only the start point for calculating tax as you need to add back disallowed expenses such as depreciation before applying capital allowances in order to calculate the figure that drops into the personal tax calculation.

justme0316 · Member

Thank you Shaun

Onion4Sage · Senior Member

Shamus wrote:
This answer is peculiar to the self employed (for incorporated entities taxation is a balance sheet liability matched to a P&L distribution similar in some ways to a dividend (it's not ever an expense)).

Anyway, for the non incorporated entity which is your scenario where tax is on the individual, not the business as such (self employed tax being collected through self assessment) the figure carried over to the the balance sheet will exclude any adjustment for tax.

Also worth pointing out here that the profit is only the start point for calculating tax as you need to add back disallowed expenses such as depreciation before applying capital allowances in order to calculate the figure that drops into the personal tax calculation.

Shaun,

For unincorporated entities I agree with your comments. However, for incorporated entities, I'm afraid I have to disagree.

For an incorporated entity, taxation is an expense included within the Companies Act definition of the result for the year. The result for the year (after tax) is transferred to retained earnings, from where distributions are made. Under IFRS rules, dividends declared and paid do not form part of either the Profit/(Loss) for the Year or the Statement of Comprehensive Income. Taxation does. The double entry for Corporation Tax is: Dr P&L Taxation expense Cr Taxation liability.

I think the confusion may lie in the fact that taxation calculations are, by definition, based on pre-tax profits. Consequently, no taxation entries yet exist in the figures used for the calculation. In a set of accounts which includes taxation entries, those entries are a P&L expense.

Regards,

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Nope, sorry to disagree Ian its not an expense.

This may simply be the way that I phrased it in my reply above. My using dividends wasn't perhaps the best example as what I was intending to convey was that tax like dividends isn't an expense of the business, reading the above back to myself it may not come accross as I had intended it to but the debate here may go beyond that.

I still stand by my original answer on this one.

Just as an example to others who may not see what I mean (not aimed at you Ian as not trying to teach my granny to suck egg's here).

Flow from turnover to retained profit :

Turnover
Cost of sales
Gross Profit

Expenses
Operating Profit

Interest
Profit before tax

Tax
Profit after tax

Dividends
Retained Profit B/Fwd
Retained Profit C/Fwd

As can clearly be seen above Tax is no more an Expense than Cost of Sales or Dividends.

As a side note whilst Dividends do not belong in the P&L which really finishes at profit after tax, quite a lot of software (I'm thinking IRIS especially here) does put the retained profit reconcilliation on the P&L rather than on the face of the balance sheet or as a note to the Capital & Reserves account.

Hope that clarifies what I was attempting to convey in my original reply about tax not being an expense.

kindest regards,

Shaun.

Onion4Sage · Senior Member

Hi Shaun,

Happy New Year.

I think we'll just agree to disagree on this one as it comes down to semantics.

If I understand your last post correctly, you're saying Taxation is not an "Expense" of the business in the same way that Interest is not an "Expense" of the business. Whilst that is certainly true, given a definition of "Expense" that is comprised of only those items that would be classified under the heading Expenses in your layout above, I think it likely that most people reading your initial statement would have interpreted it as "taxation is not ever a charge to the P&L". The clarification of your meaning has been useful.

Kind regards,

Edited to add the word taxation which was omitted in error.

-- Edited by Onion4Sage on Thursday 7th of January 2016 11:53:49 AM

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi Ian,

Happy new year to you too.

I agree, it's a matter of semantics rather than any genuine misinterpretation by either of us.

I can see exactly what you're saying about the potential misunderstanding of others but, I think that you will agree that I never actually said that taxation is not a P&L entry and such assumption would purely be down to others filling in the gaps incorrectly.

I must admit that I really am a bit of a stickler for people referring to things by their correct terms. I picked someone new to this up on the site the other day about needing to reference whether something was a current or non current asset, not just that something was an asset.

The more that pedantic gits like myself get on peoples backs about that sort of thing the easier it will be for them in the long term.

When I get a few mins I might actually start a new definitions thread as I'm sure that many people will be surprised that not even the basic definitions of an asset or a liability are as simple as they perhaps perceive and half of the time entry level books don't help the situation by taking simplification too far.

i.e. An Asset

Basic guides : Something you own

The proper definition : A resource controlled by an entity as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity.

So, taking the simplified version, (looks around the room for an example... Got one) my shoes are an asset as I own them.

Taking the proper definition, Yes I control my shoes as a result of a past event (their purchase) but there are no expected future economic benefits associated with them (i.e. they have absolutely no value on disposal) therefore they cease to be recognised as an asset (sorry shoes, you've been written off).

For something to be an asset it must have value but simplified versions of the definition do not take that into account so people will get confused by businesses having items that belong to them that do not appear on their books where if they were taught the proper version they would understand why.

Lol, sad muppet that I am (if not proven enough by the above!) I have a large deck of index cards and every day when I'm sitting in the car waiting for my boy to get out of school I shuffle them and then go through them ensuring that I am able to name every accounting, audit and ethical standard plus how to calculate every major ratio and all of the basic definitions (asset, liability, provision, intangible asset, Depreciation, Goodwill, Fair Value, contingencies, etc.).

For the standards bit I know that current thinking by professional bodies right up to the very highest level is very anti rote learning. i.e. its not about memorising these things but rather interpreting them, but, I find myself disagreeing with some of their thinking there in that where do people find things if they don't know where to look.

Told you that I was a sad muppet ;)

Think that I may have gone off topic a little here!

FoxAccountancyServices · Expert

Expense, cost, outgoing, business item... Tax could be thought of as all those things, it is just never grouped with the admin expense/cost/overhead, or anything else, and always appears under profit after interest. Come on, we're on the bookkeepers network not the chartered network... Let's keep things simple, and be a little less pedantic! We don't want to scare folks off by being overbearing about tiny things!

To answer the OP... Self assessment tax is a personal expense/cost to the individual, so doesn't go on the sole trader business profit and loss, as it's not a business expense/cost/item/etc You would transfer profit to the capital account and then if the business paid the self assessment tax, you'd post it to drawings. The tax is the individuals liability not the business'

Corporation tax is a company expense/cost/item/whatever, which reduces the profit to be transferred to the reserve, so it has to appear on a company profit and loss statement to show retained profit for the year. The tax is the company's liability, not an individual's.

Regards iris, Shaun.. There should be an something in the PL reporting options that allows the program to force the PL reserve to the notes. It shouldn't be on the PL anymore, as far as I aware. I don't have it even for the FRSSE. In SAPA, the PL reserve details only appear on the PL if no dividends are taken, and then I have to tell it not to do that. I think these things are done in such a way that makes it simple to write into the software coding. I know you don't use that, but if you come across it, you know where to direct someone to try!

Fun to be had soon with the new layout! AAT Manchester are holding an event in April which will look at the micro entity layout and the simplified FRS102 layout.

EDITED AS MOBILE TOOK PARAGRAPHS OUT WHEN POSTED

-- Edited by FoxAccountancyServices on Saturday 9th of January 2016 08:23:49 AM

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

FoxAccountancyServices wrote:
Come on, we're on the bookkeepers network not the chartered network... Let's keep things simple, and be a little less pedantic! We don't want to scare folks off by being overbearing about tiny things!

We were keeping it simple!

Plus, you do realise that it was a Chartered and and a Chartered Certified talking to each other?

Wasn't that the whole reason behind the knowing the qualifications of the person that you're talking with idea so that responses were geared towards the person that you are talking to?

Are you looking to segregate all of the accountants off to Aweb or just censor them?

Not that sort of site, it might be called the Book-keepers network but its open to all. And thank goodness it is as many of the questions asked here are accounts and tax related.

As for this thread. for simplicity I still explained things as I was going in simple easy to understand terms (the shoes analogy) so that any reader could understand what was being said.

I'm not seeing my words or the manner in which they were conveyed scaring anyone off.

p.s. did you write your post on a phone? I'm just wondering why sometimes some peoples posts get all scrunched up with all of the spacing taken out?

FoxAccountancyServices · Expert

Yes on my phone. Brain wired from work and unable to sleep! :)

Onion4Sage · Senior Member

Michelle,

Apologies if I came across as pedantic. I clearly misunderstood what Shaun meant by the term "expense". If he had meant what I thought he meant (any charge to the P&L), it would have been an incorrect statement. I merely sought to prevent anyone getting the wrong impression (i.e. that taxation was a distribution from reserves). Maybe I'm the only one who found the original statement confusing. However, all cleared up in the following dialogue so everybody is happy, no?

Happy New Year.

Kindest regards,

Onion4Sage · Senior Member

P.S. Did you not just outline exactly the same thing on the help-with-ct600 thread?

FoxAccountancyServices · Expert

Shamus wrote:
FoxAccountancyServices wrote:
Come on, we're on the bookkeepers network not the chartered network... Let's keep things simple, and be a little less pedantic! We don't want to scare folks off by being overbearing about tiny things!
We were keeping it simple!
Plus, you do realise that it was a Chartered and and a Chartered Certified talking to each other?
Wasn't that the whole reason behind the knowing the qualifications of the person that you're talking with idea so that responses were geared towards the person that you are talking to?
Yes, but the poster clearly isn't either of those. They asked a reeeeeeeeally simple question, that has a reeeeeeeeally simple answer, and somehow this massive post, which probably confused a lot of non accountant people reading, has ensued. Tax and interest are costs to the business, and its quite ok for someone to see them as an "expense" as long as they know how to deal with each correctly. (To be fair, my study books, as Ian stated, actually said "taxation expense account" to refer to the PL debit.) Cost of sales are expenses grouped in a particular way and given a particular name. Admin, distribution, and selling overheads are expenses, just grouped and headed in a particular way. And taxation and interest are expenses that happen to have their own area on the PL. To most people (and this is a site for most people) an expense is a cost is an outgoing. They are happy in that understanding, its doing no harm, and they read this thread and suddenly its like "what?"

Are you looking to segregate all of the accountants off to Aweb or just censor them?
Not that sort of site, it might be called the Book-keepers network but its open to all. And thank goodness it is as many of the questions asked here are accounts and tax related.
Yes I am glad that accountants, at whatever level, give their time to answer accounts and tax related questions. I personally just get tired of reading posts where someone has come to a forum such as this, that is primarily aimed at people who, in whatever shape or form, are trying to do mainly simple aspects of bookkeeping and accounts, for small non audited business', to get a layman answer they can understand, and from a simple question comes what feels more like a point proving exercise - and usually the debating parties start churning out the big words and legislation and proper definitions... And I just feel sorry for the poster, who will be coming back to read the new posts, and hoping to see an answer to their question, that they can understand, and that will allow them to get on with the task they queried, and they have to sift through a conversation they probably goes over their heads, and just goes back n forth back n forth... and think to myself "I bet they wish they'd never asked".

As for this thread. for simplicity I still explained things as I was going in simple easy to understand terms (the shoes analogy) so that any reader could understand what was being said.
I didn't get that far, I gave up reading. I just thought "what's the point in this". The people this site is aimed at, don't need to be confused with this. I found it confusing... and I understand it!

I'm not seeing my words or the manner in which they were conveyed scaring anyone off.
The more that pedantic gits like myself get on peoples backs about that sort of thing the easier it will be for them in the long term.
Personally, I think getting on someone's back and being pedantic about small things that don't really matter at a certain level, would cause posters to not to bother coming back. There are times when I wont respond on here, for that exact reason.

I am sorry, maybe this seems a little over the top, and maybe this thread isn't the worst example, but when I was last on, in Oct/Nov, I just felt like a lot of posts were a gruelling read. "Punchy" wasn't the word! I know its acceptable to go off point, we always do, and I have great respect for everybody's knowledge/qualification/whatever... its just sometimes things can be left unsaid. Points don't need to be proved. Agree to disagree and then stop.

-- Edited by FoxAccountancyServices on Saturday 9th of January 2016 11:09:58 AM

FoxAccountancyServices · Expert

Onion4Sage wrote:
Michelle,

Apologies if I came across as pedantic. I clearly misunderstood what Shaun meant by the term "expense". If he had meant what I thought he meant (any charge to the P&L), it would have been an incorrect statement. I merely sought to prevent anyone getting the wrong impression (i.e. that taxation was a distribution from reserves). Maybe I'm the only one who found the original statement confusing. However, all cleared up in the following dialogue so everybody is happy, no?

Happy New Year.

Kindest regards,

Happy New Year, Ian! :) I could see where your post was coming from, as I had felt the same way. I dunno, maybe I have got it on me, and have done for the last few months... just felt very disappointed about some of the posts I read on the site last year, and I come back on for one day, and there's another post making me feel that way. A lot of regulars seem to have disappeared, the site just doesn't feel the same as it did when I joined. Maybe that's all just my own perception, I don't know. But its a sorry state of affairs if the bubbly ball of positivity that is me, feels totally demotivated!

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

FoxAccountancyServices wrote:
Shamus wrote:
FoxAccountancyServices wrote:
Come on, we're on the bookkeepers network not the chartered network... Let's keep things simple, and be a little less pedantic! We don't want to scare folks off by being overbearing about tiny things!
We were keeping it simple!
Plus, you do realise that it was a Chartered and and a Chartered Certified talking to each other?
Wasn't that the whole reason behind the knowing the qualifications of the person that you're talking with idea so that responses were geared towards the person that you are talking to?
Yes, but the poster clearly isn't either of those. They asked a reeeeeeeeally simple question, that has a reeeeeeeeally simple answer, and somehow this massive post,
The answer to the post was in three very short paragraphs. What came after that was clarification between professionals. Threads on this site do that, often they don't end up covering the same subject that they started with.
which probably confused a lot of non accountant people reading, has ensued.
This exchange is at Peter and Jane level. There is nothing at all complex in any of the above and I feel that you were just looking for an excuse to go on an unprovoked attack
Tax and interest are costs to the business, and its quite ok for someone to see them as an "expense" as long as they know how to deal with each correctly. (To be fair, my study books, as Ian stated, actually said "taxation expense account" to refer to the PL debit.) Cost of sales are expenses grouped in a particular way and given a particular name. Admin, distribution, and selling overheads are expenses, just grouped and headed in a particular way. And taxation and interest are expenses that happen to have their own area on the PL. To most people (and this is a site for most people) an expense is a cost is an outgoing. They are happy in that understanding, its doing no harm, and they read this thread and suddenly its like "what?"
Are you actually saying that it is wrong to teach people properly? Is it really enough for the books to teach you how rather than why? If people are to go beyond trial balance as their professional bodies are allowing them to do then they need to understand the reasoning behind what they are doing and reading this site helps them with that by putting things in extremely easy to understand ways.
When you study accountancy you are studying a subject, not simply answering questions on a book. Some authors forget their ordiance and use office language rather than correct terms which just leads to peoples long term confusion.
By the way, I've been doing some technical editing for a major worldwide publishing house so I do know exactly what I am talking about.
Are you looking to segregate all of the accountants off to Aweb or just censor them?
Not that sort of site, it might be called the Book-keepers network but its open to all. And thank goodness it is as many of the questions asked here are accounts and tax related.
Yes I am glad that accountants, at whatever level, give their time to answer accounts and tax related questions. I personally just get tired of reading posts where someone has come to a forum such as this, that is primarily aimed at people who, in whatever shape or form, are trying to do mainly simple aspects of bookkeeping and accounts, for small non audited business', to get a layman answer they can understand, and from a simple question comes what feels more like a point proving exercise - and usually the debating parties start churning out the big words and legislation and proper definitions...
That is the nature of this business. The people in it are supposed to know what they are doing and what rules it is that they are adhering to. How does a bookkeeper argue with a client over the classification of an item if they don't know why it is classified as it is?
It seems quite obvious that I think far higher of the quality of our readership than yourself Michelle.
The original poster understood completely the first answer given. There was no need at all for you follow up by giving a different translation of the same answer.
And I just feel sorry for the poster, who will be coming back to read the new posts, and hoping to see an answer to their question, that they can understand, and that will allow them to get on with the task they queried, and they have to sift through a conversation they probably goes over their heads, and just goes back n forth back n forth... and think to myself "I bet they wish they'd never asked".
Don't judge others by your own standards Michelle.
As for this thread. for simplicity I still explained things as I was going in simple easy to understand terms (the shoes analogy) so that any reader could understand what was being said.
I didn't get that far, I gave up reading. I just thought "what's the point in this". The people this site is aimed at, don't need to be confused with this. I found it confusing... and I understand it!
So you are passing detrimental comments in an insulting manner about a thread that you have not even read.
I'm not seeing my words or the manner in which they were conveyed scaring anyone off.
"The more that pedantic gits like myself get on peoples backs about that sort of thing the easier it will be for them in the long term".
Personally, I think getting on someone's back and being pedantic about small things that don't really matter at a certain level, would cause posters to not to bother coming back. There are times when I wont respond on here, for that exact reason.
But of course if you had the attention span to read the whole post you would see that much of it was said tongue in cheek in a self deprocating manner. I fear that you read what I write with preconcieved notions without actually hearing what I am saying at all
I am sorry, maybe this seems a little over the top, and maybe this thread isn't the worst example, but when I was last on, in Oct/Nov, I just felt like a lot of posts were a gruelling read. "Punchy" wasn't the word! I know its acceptable to go off point, we always do, and I have great respect for everybody's knowledge/qualification/whatever... its just sometimes things can be left unsaid. Points don't need to be proved. Agree to disagree and then stop.
To be honest Michelle, I really don't care what you think of me as you have zero significance in my life. However, bookkeepers are reading this thinking that you are speaking for others besides yourself and for them I lower myself to responding to your post.
Are you actually saying here in the Oct/Nov line that you are still smarting from our disagreement over capital allowances on structures? Or maybe it was from when I told you to stop repeating what others (not just myself) had already written in a thread as you were obviously answering the original question without reading anyone elses responses.
Just checked up... October the 27th was the last entry in the capital allowances thread. All falls into place now.

-- Edited by FoxAccountancyServices on Saturday 9th of January 2016 11:09:58 AM

As you can tell from my response above, I'm not at all happy with this amateurish, unprovoked, unwarranted personal attack on the professional manner of the assistance that I given to people over several years both on and off this site.

However, I really don't think that I'm the one coming away from this looking bad.

Unlike yourself I do not carry arguments from one thread to the next unless others carry it with them I hope that when next we post in the same thread you have the same level of professional courtesy and also read what others have actually written before adding comment that ignores them.

FoxAccountancyServices · Expert

OK, Shaun. You're right.

RobH · Expert

FoxAccountancyServices wrote:
Shamus wrote:
FoxAccountancyServices wrote:
Come on, we're on the bookkeepers network not the chartered network... Let's keep things simple, and be a little less pedantic! We don't want to scare folks off by being overbearing about tiny things!
We were keeping it simple!
Plus, you do realise that it was a Chartered and and a Chartered Certified talking to each other?
Wasn't that the whole reason behind the knowing the qualifications of the person that you're talking with idea so that responses were geared towards the person that you are talking to?
Yes, but the poster clearly isn't either of those. They asked a reeeeeeeeally simple question, that has a reeeeeeeeally simple answer, and somehow this massive post, which probably confused a lot of non accountant people reading, has ensued. Tax and interest are costs to the business, and its quite ok for someone to see them as an "expense" as long as they know how to deal with each correctly. (To be fair, my study books, as Ian stated, actually said "taxation expense account" to refer to the PL debit.) Cost of sales are expenses grouped in a particular way and given a particular name. Admin, distribution, and selling overheads are expenses, just grouped and headed in a particular way. And taxation and interest are expenses that happen to have their own area on the PL. To most people (and this is a site for most people) an expense is a cost is an outgoing. They are happy in that understanding, its doing no harm, and they read this thread and suddenly its like "what?"

Are you looking to segregate all of the accountants off to Aweb or just censor them?
Not that sort of site, it might be called the Book-keepers network but its open to all. And thank goodness it is as many of the questions asked here are accounts and tax related.
Yes I am glad that accountants, at whatever level, give their time to answer accounts and tax related questions. I personally just get tired of reading posts where someone has come to a forum such as this, that is primarily aimed at people who, in whatever shape or form, are trying to do mainly simple aspects of bookkeeping and accounts, for small non audited business', to get a layman answer they can understand, and from a simple question comes what feels more like a point proving exercise - and usually the debating parties start churning out the big words and legislation and proper definitions... And I just feel sorry for the poster, who will be coming back to read the new posts, and hoping to see an answer to their question, that they can understand, and that will allow them to get on with the task they queried, and they have to sift through a conversation they probably goes over their heads, and just goes back n forth back n forth... and think to myself "I bet they wish they'd never asked".

As for this thread. for simplicity I still explained things as I was going in simple easy to understand terms (the shoes analogy) so that any reader could understand what was being said.
I didn't get that far, I gave up reading. I just thought "what's the point in this". The people this site is aimed at, don't need to be confused with this. I found it confusing... and I understand it!

I'm not seeing my words or the manner in which they were conveyed scaring anyone off.
The more that pedantic gits like myself get on peoples backs about that sort of thing the easier it will be for them in the long term.
Personally, I think getting on someone's back and being pedantic about small things that don't really matter at a certain level, would cause posters to not to bother coming back. There are times when I wont respond on here, for that exact reason.
I am sorry, maybe this seems a little over the top, and maybe this thread isn't the worst example, but when I was last on, in Oct/Nov, I just felt like a lot of posts were a gruelling read. "Punchy" wasn't the word! I know its acceptable to go off point, we always do, and I have great respect for everybody's knowledge/qualification/whatever... its just sometimes things can be left unsaid. Points don't need to be proved. Agree to disagree and then stop.

-- Edited by FoxAccountancyServices on Saturday 9th of January 2016 11:09:58 AM

Michelle, that's largely why I just read the forum and no longer contribute....

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Which bit Rob, would you like to expand upon that?

RobH · Expert

This comment from Michelle resonated
'Personally, I think getting on someone's back and being pedantic about small things that don't really matter at a certain level, would cause posters to not to bother coming back. There are times when I wont respond on here, for that exact reason.'

And the fact that I found the site had become a vehicle for some people (including yourself) to show how clever they are made me drop out. There is no doubt Shaun that you give a lot of your time and expertise to help others, as others do to a lesser extent but I'm not sure it is as altruistic as it might be. You are a very intelligent man, however it gets boring having it broadcast all the while. Just how I saw things so I withdrew...which I shall do again.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

So, I don't use my letters on the site, I don't mention any awards that I have won, I explain things in a manner reflective of the perceived knowledge level of the person asking the question (for example, read any of my responses to Rafal who is just starting out and compare those to responses to (say) Ian (above)), yet somehow it is deemed that I am somehow showing off how clever I am!

I don't answer anywhere near the number of questions that I could as I believe in giving others a chance to learn by teaching and in such cases I only become involved where there is a hole in their explanation or something has been relayed incorrectly.

Where I do answer a question I try to give the person asking it the full answer which often goes beyond the one that they ask. There is also the element of explaining matters for other readers in the wider audience who I am well aware may not understand something that people such as ourselves take for granted.

On occassion I ensure that people know why something is the way that it is by pointing people to the correct case law, tax regulation, accounting standard or article.

There is often considerable tongue in cheek and often self deprocating humour embedded within my replies in order to keep peoples interest over what are in many cases quite dry subjects.

I think that I possibly need to make it clear here that I really do not care what the likes of Michelle and yourself think as my one goal on this site is to improve the knowledge base of bookkeepers who are often thrown in at the deep end post qualification by various professional bodies.

I don't feel that I need to prove anything to anyone, I am certainly not fishing for any form of approval which is what both Michelle and Yourself are accusing me of.

The comprehensive way that I answer peoples questions is simply the style that I write. I am not about to change that because others do not like my writing style, or indeed it seems me.

I am shocked by Michelles unprovoked attack on myself but she appologised and I was willing to leave it at that. I am disappointed that you seem to see matters in the same incorrect manner as I had actually considered you a freind on the site. I know that we have our differences over your "there or there abouts" approach compared to my "dot the i's and cross the t's" but being informed of your actual view of me (#1) puts matters into a little better perspective.

Anyone else want to join in whilst it seems to be open season? (#2)

#1 I'm taking from your post Boring, egotistic, big headed, needing the approval of others... Did I miss any?

#2 Offer not open to representatives of training companies.

-- Edited by Shamus on Saturday 9th of January 2016 07:03:31 PM

kjmcculloch83 · Expert

Well, as a long standing member since 2008 I just want to say one thing to this thread: WOW! What happened?!

Nothing more.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Woah people!!!!!!!

This post upsets me greatly in that two of my closest BKN buddies are falling out. From my point of view of just these two people - Shaun gives the exam type/legal eagle answer and Michelle tells me how to do that via the sage software. I know - not quite as simple as that (and by the way Im not denegrating the knowledge of either one in terms of the other requirements), but I for one need you both on here, contributing.

I like getting both of the pedant and practical viewpoints. As both a pedant and a practical person - yes such exists, usually determined by the day of the week in my case these days!

NO - Im not sitting on the fence!! Its too bloody spikey today!

I for one use the 'expenses' terminology as Shaun does - a product of my Banking background Im afraid. But this post has made me realise that other people do not. Something I hadnt thought of before. So you see, even in small part this post is an eye opener and a good reason why everyone who is on here has a part to play. Just not in the way this has ended up. Forums around the world are notorious for lots of arguing but I like to think that BKN was one of the much better ones, as these types of rows are few and far between.

Rob - if you are reading this....... if your view is that this site has become a 'vehicle for some people' - surely the best way to prevent that is to post more and help out, as surely that would water down the effect of those 'people' whoever they are. That said I do not think it valid to suggest Shaun is such a person - there are massive tracts of time when he does not answer but just keeps the watchful eye out as a moderator should and he will dip in if there is any duff info given by peeps, just as Michelle does on a regular basis too. I would like to see you do and anyone else with the kind of background you guys have.

I absolutely hate any of my posts being corrected by either Shaun or Michelle as they make me feel stupid - not their intention by any means. But I tell you what - without them and a good few others on BKN, imparting their knowledge and correcting me I wouldnt be doing as well as I am with my business today! There is much more I could say, but Im not so good at putting things in writing so I will leave it there.

Come on people!

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Cheshire wrote:
There is much more I could say, but Im not so good at putting things in writing so I will leave it there.

Oh i don't know, you did a pretty good summing up there.

Michelle, I would hate for you to leave the forum. You have been a tremendous help to me here and I'm sure to many others.

sausalito · Newbie

Firstly, it is very disappointing to see that a moderator of this site, has just been told, by two very good contributors, that they dont feel comfortable posting on threads, and there is not one ounce of concern for that. But its not your business you are damaging is it, Shaun? You can put yourself first, and do the good readers out of yet another good contributor, and wreck the good site that Steve intended. You should be ashamed of such responses to fellow contributors - isnt it always you who is telling people we cannot slag off other professionals... isnt there something in your little rule book about that? And here you are, doing it on a public forum??!!

This site used to have loads of contributors to answer questions - amazing people with so much experience. There were at least 15 of us, signed in, answering, bantering, on a daily basis. People who made this site better than it is now. And you have alienated quite a few, so now those posters you protest to care about so much, dont get the same service. (And I don't say that out of thin air, and I don't say it to demean the good contributors that are still here) To ask a question on this site is great, to be a contributor who has an opinion that differs to Shauns... not so much.

This is Michelle. I no longer want my business name on this site. Its very easy for posters, who make no reference to their business, to say whatever they want to those that have to remain professional, because their company names are on show.

Anyway, Michelle, not her business, would like to comment on this post, as her business was too dignified to make a response. I was quietly going to take my advice somewhere else. Having seen what then came after, to another professional, whose business again is listed, I feel no option to make comment. I didnt come to the site to offer my free time, and get spoken to like that, neither did Rob - Id expect a moderator to be putting a stop to those sorts of things, not creating them.

Heres how I would have said it, if I wasnt trying to be polite

"This answer is peculiar to the self employed" - Think you mean particular I was too polite to correct

Taxation IS an expense to the company. As is Interest and Similar Charges. Most items that are negatives on the profit and loss are, and your original comment was badly worded. Ian tried to politely clarify, for anyone your comment might have confused, and your response to another professional was appalling.

"Nope, sorry to disagree Ian its not an expense." - Nope, sorry?? How flippant and dismissive! And he wasn't actually wrong!!

Your PL report was not quite the usual, a company PL report looks like this: (I am not trying to teach a granny how to suck eggs only how to properly explain it)

Turnover
Cost of sales
Gross Profit

Selling and distribution costs
Administrative expenses
Net profit before interest and taxation

Interest and similar charges
Net profit before taxation

Taxation
Profit after tax

The profit after tax is then taken to the profit and loss reserve note, which supports the balance sheet profit reserve figure.

"As can clearly be seen"(another use of bad wording, that makes it sound like you are putting Ian in his place) theres no mention of expenses only "administration expenses". COGS, S&D, Admin, Interest and Taxation are all costs/expenses/outgoings to the business, which reduce the profit which has to be taken to the reserve, classified into their own slot on the PL, to allow for ratios and other information to be gleaned... it is not wrong to explain that to people - that they are all expenses. It is just that they are not all administration expenses. That is a very valid way to explain it, obviously not your way, but anyone who explains it this way, is doing no dis-service to a student, business owner, or bookkeeper.

Anyway, moving on... Ian realises that you must have been talking specifically about taxation not being an administration expense (or if you are being pedantic, about anything that appear between gross and net profit). And so, despite your condescending wording, politely tries to end the discussion.

But no..

"I can see exactly what you're saying about the potential misunderstanding of others but, I think that you will agree that I never actually said that taxation is not a P&L entry and such assumption would purely be down to others filling in the gaps incorrectly."

Why? Why couldnt you just let it go? Why do you have to have the last word? Then you start talking about putting up new definitions threads - why would you say that, at that exact moment? After that exchange with Ian? I am all for you doing your own little definitions threads, and, at any other time, it would have felt like a great idea but there is a time to say it, and it is not when you have just debated the classification of a costs with another professional, who you told was wrong. Perhaps, had you not seemed so condescending to him, it might not have smacked of "let me teach everyone, I know better" - whether you meant it or not. Perhaps if you were a little less condescending, the self-deprecation may have seemed genuine.

And so, I felt compelled to say something, as I am tired of reading posts where mainly YOU do this to other professionals (myself included). I have no doubt that you are completely unaware, and I am truly sure that you are not just some self-absorbed egotistical idiot, who enjoys condescending and patronising other professionals.

"you do realise that it was a Chartered and and a Chartered Certified talking to each other?"

Yes I did, but thanks for thinking I wouldnt know this... you can be forgiven because there is so little information about you and your business on your signature. You could be some unemployed bloke who is just very good with google, for all I know.

So lets get into that dramatic reply to the "unprovoked attack"

Well firstly, if you read my post, you will see its all about the readers, not you. My replies are mainly geared towards readers - who are not all accountants, and who could easily be confused by a statement we, as accountants, take for granted. Whilst it is true that you, in my eyes, are one of the people who tends to get too heavy sometimes, and can be offensive (maybe without realising it), it in no way singled you out. Maybe you just know in your own head that you do it regularly, and got defensive, and as usual, you turn it around into you being the victim, completely disregarding the fact that maybe you have been the perpetrator to someone else - whether you meant it or not.

So thinking about the readers and why I felt compelled to say something. Whilst I never try to rub my qualification and experience in others faces, you do realise I have been teaching and training students, business owners, and bookkeepers, of all levels, for 23 years so "I" know what I am talking about. (ooh feel that condescension) And I aim to speak to all those levels whenever I reply, whoever I reply to. I categorically do not have a low opinion of the readers of this site, I care about all levels, including those who would admit they don't have a clue - there's is no shame in that, its admirable for anyone to try and gain knowledge on something - that's why I give my free time to this site. That was a very bitchy thing of you to insinuate, and you should be ashamed of that comment.

Your answer to the OP was 3 short paragraphs, but a comment you made could have confused a reader of any level. It may have been Peter & Jane level to you, but it wouldnt have to been to some readers.

It is not wrong to teach people properly, but, to teach all levels, at the same time, one has to be very considerate of the way things are said, in all posts, regardless of who talking to. OK, if an accountant starts a thread asking a very techy question, that's one thing... anyone who didn't need to know about something so techy, has the choice to click away. We, as the experts, need to make a judgement on how we approach our answers, based on who we think might be interested in that post, and what we are saying, however it digresses.

A lot of what you teach is by the book, Shaun you literally could be a guy sat on google, as a lot of what you say is based on the written word. Of course, you are not (one hopes!), but hey, I am going to put my points across in the same way you have done to me so many times - in a way that is made to get your goat! (And trust me, I have alllllll the examples ready from my posts, and from those I have read to others.) If my wording smacks of putting you in your place - then I am achieving Shaun status.

But I digress... As Jo says, its usually me that comes in after you, and brings the practical side to the table because whilst its all written down in books and the letter of the law, real life is very rarely like that -and you do realise (there it is again) that I have 23 years experience of the day to day realities of being involved with the small business - teaching bookkeepers and business owners, investigations, problem solving - something you do not have as much experience in. Thats fine, its great we all have different backgrounds, but clearly you have no respect for any of my experience, otherwise you would treat me with more respect than you have done in this post, and, a few other posts. And I extend that comment to include all the other professionals on this site that you have offended. Now I dont have my business name to worry about, I can let rip, just like you do!

You ask how a bookkeeper can argue the classification of a cost... how does a bookkeeper explain to a client that tax is not an expense, based on your comments? Ian sought to set that straight, as did I.

And my answer to the OP sought to be a little clearer than your post, and to add on about tax being drawings.

"Judging people by my own standards" There will have been people on this site who will have rolled their eyes and thought the same trust me.

I am not passing detrimental comments about the part of the thread that I didn't read, my comments were all based on the parts I did read - I'd heard enough of your attitude towards Ian and wasn't interested in your shoes.

"Attention span" - bitchy and defamatory

"Zero significance in my life" - bitchy and self important

"I lower myself to respond to your post" - bitchy, defamatory AND self important

"Just checked up October the 27th was the last entry in the capital allowances thread. All falls into place now" - bitchy, self important, trying to shift focus and invalidate the issue.

"Amatuerish" - defamatory

"Unprovoked, unwarranted" - self important opinion

"Personal attack" - self important opinion

"The professional manner" - debatable based on this post

All of the above comments are unprofessional, and disgusting that they are coming from a moderator.

"Arguments being carried over" - I don't see any of that on here, well, not until you provoked this post, with your dramatic and unprofessional responses to two other professionals. Wasnt it me who emailed you, of the blue, to wish you well for Christmas? No previous argument is carried over, only an opinion that I have long kept to myself, which for anyone it includes, does not mean I have ill feeling towards, it just means I wish they wouldn't. As said above, you are just trying invalidate my true feelings by suggesting its about a previous argument. But while we are on the subject of previous posts - A person of your intelligence, should not use your ability to quote things in a way someone wont understand, in order to win your argument. You have done it to me, and I have seen you do it to others.

"I don't answer anywhere near the number of questions that I could"

Have you not noticed there arent really as many questions any more and that most contributors have disappeared. I thought this was down to being busy but I have now found out, quite a few feel the same as Rob.

"I only become involved where there is a hole in their explanation or something has been relayed incorrectly"

Oh, so its ok for you to interject when you see others have relayed something incorrectly, and the rest of us get condescended and dismissed when we interject? And then this shocking reply when we try to make our own points?

"I really do not care what the likes of Michelle and yourself"

Seriously? "The likes"?! What are you inferring? People who have an opinion and call you on it, become "the likes"? Who are you anyway?

"my one goal on this site is to improve the knowledge base of bookkeepers who are often thrown in at the deep end post qualification by various professional bodies."

So my post, which is about my goal for readers, now makes me "the likes" and not a person who wants to help people in the same way you do? (though, I include those that aren't seeking qualification, such as the small business owner)

"I am certainly not fishing for any form of approval which is what both Michelle and Yourself are accusing me of."

Woah! How did I get dragged into that? Your mind is really creating things, if I have said that?

"I am shocked by Michelles unprovoked attack on myself but she appologised and I was willing to leave it at that."

No, there was no apology only dismay after reading such an appalling attack from you, and the dignity to walk away, and leave you to it. For the record, there was no attack on you. Your reply, however, WAS an attack. Directed at me, and me alone. And very publicly singling me out. But gosh thanks, you were willing to leave it at that. I am really grateful to you, for granting me that.

"we have our differences over your "there or there abouts" approach compared to my "dot the i's and cross the t's" but being informed of your actual view of me (#1) puts matters into a little better perspective."

"There or thereabouts" - are you trying to suggest that Rob is in some way not doing his job properly in that he doesnt labour over small things that do not matter, as you do? Its not your differences that are the problem, its your attitude when discussing them.

And what can anyone do - the person who we should complain to, is the person who is causing the issue. I am not prepared to give me free time to this site, while you remain as moderator.

And thats as polite as I can say it. There have been so many times when I have wanted to say something, and have bit my tongue because I dont think this is the place, and its not fair to subject readers to arguments. But somethings got to give. I dont expect everyone to agree, but I just couldnt keep it to myself after Shauns response to Rob. I am so sorry to the poster and all the other good folk on here, no matter what your opinion, who've have to suffer this.

(Edited as advanced editor had removed some punctuation)

-- Edited by sausalito on Monday 11th of January 2016 01:22:54 PM

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

I've given others chance to step in and have their say but it seems that nobody wishes to risk telling you how wrong you are... Or maybe they agree with you.. Or maybe they see both sides... Who knows, nobody else has said anything.

You are entitled to your opinions even though I see them as totally incorrect. I have read your entire message but I am not going to fuel the fire by responding to all of it. However, there are a few bits n bobs in there that perhaps I should correct you on.

I do appreciate that no matter what I say here you will read whatever you want but I'm going to put my points across anyway.

"There or there abouts" is a phrase coined by Rob to describe his approach as opposed to the dot the i's cross the t's of the likes of people such as Bill and myself. There was no insult there and if you ask Rob I'm sure that he will confirm that.

I could not imagine anyone reading my friendly chat with Ian as an attack on his level of knowledge and expertise but you seem to have turned it into one. I'm still looking at that and thinking "How???!!!".

I did mean peculiar. It is the right word for that sentence.

I agree that I teach by the book (but I must emphasise that I am not teaching from one!). Why do you talk about knowing matters from the perspective of the accounting standards as if it's a bad thing? As Joanne said yesterday, she finds the two styles complimentary and I am sure that others do to.

How can you make a sweeping statement about me having less experience than you whilst simultaneously stating that you know nothing about me??? You're right, I do not have 23 years experience... I have 37. However, time alone does not make one a better teacher. There are area's that you will know better than myself (Sage for example, probably CIS and Payroll as well) but the same is true the other way around. I'll leave it to others to decide which area's I am better at.

I find it difficult to believe that you do not see your post from Sat Jan 9 10:38 2016 as an unprovoked attack on me that was the root cause of this escalation. You complain about the moderator attacking you but I am reminded here of an old saying "Don't poke a bear with a stick and expect to walk away with both of your hands".

I have no grievance against you but please stop with the attacks and then playing victim. I find it ironic that you are accusing me of what you are doing?... Maybe you genuinely don't see it. Anyone can read this thread top to bottom and make up their own minds on what the facts of this really are.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Leger wrote:
Cheshire wrote:
There is much more I could say, but Im not so good at putting things in writing so I will leave it there.
Oh i don't know, you did a pretty good summing up there.
Michelle, I would hate for you to leave the forum. You have been a tremendous help to me here and I'm sure to many others.

Thanks John.

Shaun has been a tremendous help too. Plus he gives up many many hours to this site, can never walk away from it even temporarily as all of the rest of us do occasionally as we get busy. He might not post for a while when he is busy but always has to keep an eye on goings on. Would like to see anyone else giving up the hours he does for free!

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

From my point of view the problem with this post did not start until the line Come on, we're on the bookkeepers network not the chartered network... Let's keep things simple. That was Michelles line and one which frankly I took great umbrage with. I have to say I found this very patronising as a bookkeeper, when I am aiming for Chartered status in the long run and therefore looking for the letter of the law as well as how I can get round it (so to speak). There are a few of us on this site going down this route, so its good to get the more complex answers to what seems like a relatively simple question.

BUT I didnt say anything at the time, because its just this sort of thing, on other sites, that has led to melt down. Plus frankly I havent got the time nor inclination these days to be getting into arguments with folk, especially folk who Ive always had a lot of respect for.

I am surprised by the depth of feeling on both parts here, but Michelle, you say that your comments were not aimed at anyone specifically but who else, other than Shaun, were you aiming the '' usually the debating parties start churning out the big words and legislation and proper definitions'' at. When I first read it, and again when I read it the only conclusion I came to was that it was aimed at Shaun and so I admit to seeing that as a personal issue. Plus how could Rob's comment ''vehicle for some people (including yourself) to show how clever they are'' not be seen as personal to Shaun as well. Unfortunately when its made personal, people get upset and that is now why we are where we are.

This needs to stop and to stop here, now. Each of us has our own opinions over every last little aspect of what is said on this site, and could easily vent frustrations at many of the posting/posters - Moderators, so called experts, senior members and newbies but we should just help in the best way we can and not criticise anyone for either too full an answer or indeed an answer lacking in the detail - lets just get on with it and respond in our own unique styles to the best of our abilities (which are wide and varied). I MEAN TO FUTURE POSTS!!!!!!!!

Michelle you have been a great contributor on here.

Shaun you have been a great contributor on here.

Each in their own way, own style, own humour etc etc etc.

If anyone doesnt like what they see on the forum - tough! This forum may have lost a few over the last year but it has gained a few too. It is still one of the best all inclusive, free forums for this role and one where, on the whole, there is very little squabbling and pettyness.

Lets get back to that!

VinceH · Expert

I'm just going to throw this in here:
What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!

https://xkcd.com/386/

Now just laugh. Then go away and have a kip - or a kipper, if that's your inclination (but definitely not a skipper, because that'd be like cannibalism, or something) - and come back with a nice cup of tea and move on to the next thread.

Edited to copy the alt text as the title text. Move your mouse pointer over the image.

-- Edited by VinceH on Monday 11th of January 2016 09:45:55 PM

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Lol Vince.

Many a true word and all that ;)

sausalito · Newbie

Hi Jo, thank you giving your opinion. When you put it like that, I apologise unreservedly, to everyone involved, including Shaun.

VinceH · Expert

I know, I've partaken of more than my fair share of internet squabbles. :)

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Accepted and reciprocated Michelle.

All forgotten now.

If you contact Steve you should be able to get your other account reinstated if you want it (might not be immediate though as its January!).

Well done Joanne, the voice of reason when madness ensues all around you as usual.

I hope that all of us on the site are able to help you towards that goal that you have set yourself.

There may be a new student training tariff introduced for any Chartered looking to join the site in the Manchester area!

Believe it and you will get there Jo.

kindest regards,

Shaun.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Cheshire wrote:
Leger wrote:
Cheshire wrote:
There is much more I could say, but Im not so good at putting things in writing so I will leave it there.
Oh i don't know, you did a pretty good summing up there.
Michelle, I would hate for you to leave the forum. You have been a tremendous help to me here and I'm sure to many others.

Thanks John.
Shaun has been a tremendous help too.....

That goes without saying. Like Vince said, I've had my share of internet squabbles in the past, and been offended by what someone else has said. I love the fact that this forum is a lot more amicable than a lot I have frequented. Michelle felt, rightly or wrongly, that she should leave. My comments would have been similar if it was you or Shaun in that situation.