Further to the earlier query by coincidence I have a client who had
got their accounting in a mess. They had been sending invoices out
automatically using MYOB so they had no control of the invoice date.
They had also been invoicing very early in an attempt to get the money
earlier! I found out that their suppliers had been doing the same
thing! Unfortunately, my client had not been putting a period of
service on the invoices so nobody knew what period they were for!

I explained to my client that if everything was sorted out they could
have a good idea of the profitability of the business. Unfortunately,
some invoices are for three months or a year so journals would be
required. If we used the invoice dates on the supplier invoices there
would be a massive calculation required to know what deferred revenue
and prepayments were each month.

I wondered if there was anything HMRC could say to get the suppliers
to come up with sesibly dated invoices.

I called HMRC VAT Helpline and got a call back from an "expert". She
explained that you can date an invoice as early as you want and it
will still make it the tax point. She said that she didn't see the
point of anybody dating the invoices early because they would have to
account for the VAT early. I explained that they would still be
getting the net amount earlier. She didn't seem to understand this
concept! I explained about the difficulty in calculating an accurate
monthly profit if the invoice date was used. I said that I suppose I
could still account for the supplier invoices using the start of the
service date. She said that I couldn't because you have to use the
invoice date. I asked her what would be the penalty? This was another
question she didn't understand! I explained that all I am doing is
claiming VAT on inputs later than I could claim them. She asked me why
anybody would want to do that!

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Further to the earlier query by coincidence I have a client who had
> got their accounting in a mess. They had been sending invoices out
> automatically using MYOB so they had no control of the invoice date.
> They had also been invoicing very early in an attempt to get the money
> earlier! I found out that their suppliers had been doing the same
> thing! Unfortunately, my client had not been putting a period of
> service on the invoices so nobody knew what period they were for!
>
> I explained to my client that if everything was sorted out they
> could have a good idea of the profitability of the business.
> Unfortunately, some invoices are for three months or a year so
> journals would be required. If we used the invoice dates on the
> supplier invoices there would be a massive calculation required to
> know what deferred revenue and prepayments were each month.
>
> I wondered if there was anything HMRC could say to get
> the suppliers to come up with sesibly dated invoices.
>
> I called HMRC VAT Helpline and got a call back from an
> "expert". She explained that you can date an invoice as early
> as you want and it will still make it the tax point. She said that
> she didn't see the point of anybody dating the invoices early
> because they would have to account for the VAT early. I
> explained that they would still be getting the net amount earlier...

But would they?  If the person invoiced had noticed that
the earlier date was not in line with the contract, then
surely they might withold the payment until the date as
stipulated in the contract?  Then the invoicer would be left
having to pay the output VAT earlier, but not receiving
(either the VAT or the net) payment until afterwards...


"PeterSaxton" wrote
> ... She didn't seem to understand this concept! I explained
> about the difficulty in calculating an accurate monthly profit if
> the invoice date was used. I said that I suppose I could still
> account for the supplier invoices using the start of the service
> date. She said that I couldn't because you have to use the
> invoice date. I asked her what would be the penalty? This was
> another question she didn't understand! I explained that all I
> am doing is claiming VAT on inputs later than I could claim
> them. She asked me why anybody would want to do that!

On 11 Jun, 17:40, "Tim"  wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Further to the earlier query by coincidence I have a client who had
> > got their accounting in a mess. They had been sending invoices out
> > automatically using MYOB so they had no control of the invoice date.
> > They had also been invoicing very early in an attempt to get the money
> > earlier! I found out that their suppliers had been doing the same
> > thing! Unfortunately, my client had not been putting a period of
> > service on the invoices so nobody knew what period they were for!
>
> > I explained to my client that if everything was sorted out they
> > could have a good idea of the profitability of the business.
> > Unfortunately, some invoices are for three months or a year so
> > journals would be required. If we used the invoice dates on the
> > supplier invoices there would be a massive calculation required to
> > know what deferred revenue and prepayments were each month.
>
> > I wondered if there was anything HMRC could say to get
> > the suppliers to come up with sesibly dated invoices.
>
> > I called HMRC VAT Helpline and got a call back from an
> > "expert". She explained that you can date an invoice as early
> > as you want and it will still make it the tax point. She said that
> > she didn't see the point of anybody dating the invoices early
> > because they would have to account for the VAT early. I
> > explained that they would still be getting the net amount earlier...
>
> But would they?  If the person invoiced had noticed that
> the earlier date was not in line with the contract, then
> surely they might withold the payment until the date as
> stipulated in the contract?  Then the invoicer would be left
> having to pay the output VAT earlier, but not receiving
> (either the VAT or the net) payment until afterwards...
>
Unfortunately these types don't mention payment terms.

I wouldn't be surprised if the longer a customer takes to pay an
invoice the supplier will just issue the invoice earlier!

>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > Further to the earlier query by coincidence I have a client who had
>> > got their accounting in a mess. They had been sending invoices out
>> > automatically using MYOB so they had no control of the invoice date.
>> > They had also been invoicing very early in an attempt to get the money
>> > earlier! I found out that their suppliers had been doing the same
>> > thing! Unfortunately, my client had not been putting a period of
>> > service on the invoices so nobody knew what period they were for!
>> >
>> > I explained to my client that if everything was sorted out they
>> > could have a good idea of the profitability of the business.
>> > Unfortunately, some invoices are for three months or a year so
>> > journals would be required. If we used the invoice dates on the
>> > supplier invoices there would be a massive calculation required to
>> > know what deferred revenue and prepayments were each month.
>> >
>> > I wondered if there was anything HMRC could say to get
>> > the suppliers to come up with sesibly dated invoices.
>> >
>> > I called HMRC VAT Helpline and got a call back from an
>> > "expert". She explained that you can date an invoice as early
>> > as you want and it will still make it the tax point. She said that
>> > she didn't see the point of anybody dating the invoices early
>> > because they would have to account for the VAT early. I
>> > explained that they would still be getting the net amount earlier...
>>
>"Tim" wrote:
>> But would they? If the person invoiced had noticed that
>> the earlier date was not in line with the contract, then
>> surely they might withold the payment until the date as
>> stipulated in the contract? Then the invoicer would be left
>> having to pay the output VAT earlier, but not receiving
>> (either the VAT or the net) payment until afterwards...
>>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
>Unfortunately these types don't mention payment terms.

In that case, how could they enforce payment for a specific time?
Wouldn't they end up being paid **even later** ?!

"PeterSaxton" wrote
>I wouldn't be surprised if the longer a customer takes to
>pay an invoice the supplier will just issue the invoice earlier!

On 11 Jun, 19:19, "Tim"  wrote:
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> > Further to the earlier query by coincidence I have a client who had
> >> > got their accounting in a mess. They had been sending invoices out
> >> > automatically using MYOB so they had no control of the invoice date.
> >> > They had also been invoicing very early in an attempt to get the money
> >> > earlier! I found out that their suppliers had been doing the same
> >> > thing! Unfortunately, my client had not been putting a period of
> >> > service on the invoices so nobody knew what period they were for!
>
> >> > I explained to my client that if everything was sorted out they
> >> > could have a good idea of the profitability of the business.
> >> > Unfortunately, some invoices are for three months or a year so
> >> > journals would be required. If we used the invoice dates on the
> >> > supplier invoices there would be a massive calculation required to
> >> > know what deferred revenue and prepayments were each month.
>
> >> > I wondered if there was anything HMRC could say to get
> >> > the suppliers to come up with sesibly dated invoices.
>
> >> > I called HMRC VAT Helpline and got a call back from an
> >> > "expert". She explained that you can date an invoice as early
> >> > as you want and it will still make it the tax point. She said that
> >> > she didn't see the point of anybody dating the invoices early
> >> > because they would have to account for the VAT early. I
> >> > explained that they would still be getting the net amount earlier...
>
> >"Tim" wrote:
> >> But would they? If the person invoiced had noticed that
> >> the earlier date was not in line with the contract, then
> >> surely they might withold the payment until the date as
> >> stipulated in the contract? Then the invoicer would be left
> >> having to pay the output VAT earlier, but not receiving
> >> (either the VAT or the net) payment until afterwards...
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >Unfortunately these types don't mention payment terms.
>
> In that case, how could they enforce payment for a specific time?

They can't enforce it.

> Wouldn't they end up being paid **even later** ?!
>
That's not the point. Payment is not the issue with me. This is what
happens in the real world. It just makes the accounting more
difficult.

>> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> ...
>> >> > I explained that they would still be getting the net amount 
>> >> > earlier...
>>
>> >"Tim" wrote:
>> >> But would they? ...
>> ...
> ...
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Wouldn't they end up being paid **even later** ?!
>>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> That's not the point...

Eh?  I was replying to your comment that  "...they would
still be getting the net amount earlier."   [See above.]

So it very much *is* the point!

You even went on to say  "She didn't seem to understand this
concept!", yet it looks more like *you* don't understand!!


"PeterSaxton" wrote
> ... Payment is not the issue with me. This is what happens
> in the real world. It just makes the accounting more difficult.

The accounting is irrelevant when just considering whether
they will actually "be getting the net amount earlier."

On 12 Jun, 08:19, "Tim"  wrote:
> >> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> ...
> >> >> > I explained that they would still be getting the net amount
> >> >> > earlier...
>
> >> >"Tim" wrote:
> >> >> But would they? ...
> >> ...
> > ...
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> Wouldn't they end up being paid **even later** ?!
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > That's not the point...
>
> Eh?  I was replying to your comment that  "...they would
> still be getting the net amount earlier."   [See above.]
>
> So it very much *is* the point!
>
> You even went on to say  "She didn't seem to understand this
> concept!", yet it looks more like *you* don't understand!!
>
What makes you think I don't understand. Yet again you show your
obsession with wanting to argue.

> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > ... Payment is not the issue with me. This is what happens
> > in the real world. It just makes the accounting more difficult.
>
> The accounting is irrelevant when just considering whether
> they will actually "be getting the net amount earlier."

I called HMRC to see what could be done about getting the invoices
sensibly dated. I didn't call them about when they would get paid.

>> >> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> >> ...
>> >> >> > I explained that they would still
>> >> >> > be getting the net amount earlier...
>>
>> >> >"Tim" wrote:
>> >> >> But would they? ...
>> >> ...
>> > ...
>> > "Tim" wrote:
>> >> Wouldn't they end up being paid **even later** ?!
>>
>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > That's not the point...
>>
>"Tim" wrote:
>> Eh? I was replying to your comment that "...they would
>> still be getting the net amount earlier." [See above.]
>>
>> So it very much *is* the point!
>>
>> You even went on to say "She didn't seem to understand this
>> concept!", yet it looks more like *you* don't understand!!
>>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> What makes you think I don't understand. ...

You originally said "She didn't seem to understand this concept!",
yet the 'concept' to which you referred is " ... that they
would still be getting the net amount earlier", which is untrue.
So what is it that you are surprised she didn't understand?


>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > ... Payment is not the issue with me. This is what happens
>> > in the real world. It just makes the accounting more difficult.
>>
>"Tim" wrote:
>> The accounting is irrelevant when just considering whether
>> they will actually "be getting the net amount earlier."
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> I called HMRC to see what could be done about getting the invoices
> sensibly dated. I didn't call them about when they would get paid.

But, by your own admission, it was *you* who introduced
when they would be paid into the conversation!
In reply to the HMRC expert saying " ... that she didn't see the
point of anybody dating the invoices early because they would
have to account for the VAT early",  you say that you  " ...
explained that they would still be getting the net amount earlier."

But now you agree that they wouldn't;  so -
what *is* the point of dating them early?

On 12 Jun, 16:37, "Tim"  wrote:
> >> >> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > I explained that they would still
> >> >> >> > be getting the net amount earlier...
>
> >> >> >"Tim" wrote:
> >> >> >> But would they? ...
> >> >> ...
> >> > ...
> >> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> >> Wouldn't they end up being paid **even later** ?!
>
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> > That's not the point...
>
> >"Tim" wrote:
> >> Eh? I was replying to your comment that "...they would
> >> still be getting the net amount earlier." [See above.]
>
> >> So it very much *is* the point!
>
> >> You even went on to say "She didn't seem to understand this
> >> concept!", yet it looks more like *you* don't understand!!
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > What makes you think I don't understand. ...
>
> You originally said "She didn't seem to understand this concept!",
> yet the 'concept' to which you referred is " ... that they
> would still be getting the net amount earlier", which is untrue.
> So what is it that you are surprised she didn't understand?
>
>
>
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> > ... Payment is not the issue with me. This is what happens
> >> > in the real world. It just makes the accounting more difficult.
>
> >"Tim" wrote:
> >> The accounting is irrelevant when just considering whether
> >> they will actually "be getting the net amount earlier."
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > I called HMRC to see what could be done about getting the invoices
> > sensibly dated. I didn't call them about when they would get paid.
>
> But, by your own admission, it was *you* who introduced
> when they would be paid into the conversation!
> In reply to the HMRC expert saying " ... that she didn't see the
> point of anybody dating the invoices early because they would
> have to account for the VAT early",  you say that you  " ...
> explained that they would still be getting the net amount earlier."
>
> But now you agree that they wouldn't;  so -
> what *is* the point of dating them early?

You are just wanting to argue for the sake of it. Ask what is the
point of dating them earlier as much as you want. The fact is that all
these people were dating them earlier and hoping to get paid earlier.
Whether anybody actually paid them earlier is a different issue. It
still makes the accounting more difficult.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> You are just wanting to argue for the sake of it.

No, that's just your incorrect assumption.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Ask what is the point of dating them earlier as much as
> you want. The fact is that all these people were dating
> them earlier and hoping to get paid earlier. Whether
> anybody actually paid them earlier is a different issue...

Then you shouldn't have made it the issue...
If the invoices are not actually paid earlier, then the
HMRC expert is quite right to say the following:-

>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > "She said that she didn't see the point of anybody
>> > dating the invoices early because they would have
>> > to account for the VAT early. I explained that
>> > they would still be getting the net amount earlier.
>> > She didn't seem to understand this concept!"


"PeterSaxton" wrote
> ... It still makes the accounting more difficult.

Oh dear - can't you cope?

On 13 Jun, 10:36, "Tim"  wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > You are just wanting to argue for the sake of it.
>
> No, that's just your incorrect assumption.
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > Ask what is the point of dating them earlier as much as
> > you want. The fact is that all these people were dating
> > them earlier and hoping to get paid earlier. Whether
> > anybody actually paid them earlier is a different issue...
>
> Then you shouldn't have made it the issue...

Nobody makes something THE issue.

> If the invoices are not actually paid earlier, then the
> HMRC expert is quite right to say the following:-
>
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> > "She said that she didn't see the point of anybody
> >> > dating the invoices early because they would have
> >> > to account for the VAT early. I explained that
> >> > they would still be getting the net amount earlier.
> >> > She didn't seem to understand this concept!"
>
How can anybody be right if they only seem to understand the VAT
aspect and not the net aspect?

> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > ... It still makes the accounting more difficult.
>
> Oh dear - can't you cope?

Don't be so childish.

Maybe you like to do a lot of unnecessary calculations but sensible
people try to streamline work as much as possible.

> "Tim" wrote:
>> If the invoices are not actually paid earlier, then the
>> HMRC expert is quite right to say the following:-
>>
>> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> >> > "She said that she didn't see the point of anybody
>> >> > dating the invoices early because they would have
>> >> > to account for the VAT early. I explained that
>> >> > they would still be getting the net amount earlier.
>> >> > She didn't seem to understand this concept!"
>>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> How can anybody be right if they only seem to
> understand the VAT aspect and not the net aspect?

(1)  How are you so sure that she *didn't*
      understand the net aspect?

(2)  The net aspect is covered by the conditional
      ("If the invoices are not actually paid earlier")
      before my subsequent statement
      ("then the HMRC expert is
      quite right to say the following").

(3)  "How can anybody be right if they only seem
      to understand 'X' and not 'Y'" ?  That's easy...
      They just talk about 'X' and don't talk about 'Y'...
     [Assuming other things are equal.]


>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > ... It still makes the accounting more difficult.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Oh dear - can't you cope?
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Don't be so childish.

No, this is the childish thought:-
"I wondered if there was anything HMRC could say to
get the suppliers to come up with sesibly dated invoices."

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Maybe you like to do a lot of unnecessary calculations but
> sensible people try to streamline work as much as possible.

It's not the accountants job to run their client's business for them.
Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it (to make
your job easier).  But at the end of the day, the business owner
runs the business, and you just account for things the way that they
have happened.  Your choice is to either do it, or lose the client.

Tim wrote:

> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> How can anybody be right if they only seem to
>> understand the VAT aspect and not the net aspect?
> 
> (1)  How are you so sure that she *didn't*
>       understand the net aspect?

Because she said she didn't see the point.  Since there
clearly is a point [issuing invoices early might not get
everyone to pay them early, but it might get some to], it
follows that she didn't seem to understand it.

> (2)  The net aspect is covered by the conditional
>       ("If the invoices are not actually paid earlier")
>       before my subsequent statement
>       ("then the HMRC expert is
>       quite right to say the following").

That's too simple a conditional.  It's not a matter of *whether*
*everyone* either pays earlier or not, but of *how many* invoices
(by value, not number) are in fact paid early enough to make it
worth accepting the downside of having to pay the output VAT early.

The strategy can be fine-tuned.  If you know that a particular
customer won't pay early despite being invoiced early, then
don't invoice him early.  Or restrict early invoicing to the  
first half (or so) of the VAT quarter, so that there's a better
chance of the cash being in with which to pay the VAT bill.

> (3)  "How can anybody be right if they only seem
>       to understand 'X' and not 'Y'" ?  That's easy...
>       They just talk about 'X' and don't talk about 'Y'...
>      [Assuming other things are equal.]

I don't follow the logic of this.  If they only talk about what
they (seem to) understand, it doesn't guarantee they'll be right.

Besides, when X is "some aspect(s) of the whole" and Y is "all the
other aspects of the whole", then even if they're right about X,
they aren't necessarily going to be right about the whole, are they?

On 14 Jun, 12:30, "Tim"  wrote:
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> If the invoices are not actually paid earlier, then the
> >> HMRC expert is quite right to say the following:-
>
> >> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> >> > "She said that she didn't see the point of anybody
> >> >> > dating the invoices early because they would have
> >> >> > to account for the VAT early. I explained that
> >> >> > they would still be getting the net amount earlier.
> >> >> > She didn't seem to understand this concept!"
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > How can anybody be right if they only seem to
> > understand the VAT aspect and not the net aspect?
>
> (1)  How are you so sure that she *didn't*
>       understand the net aspect?
>
> (2)  The net aspect is covered by the conditional
>       ("If the invoices are not actually paid earlier")
>       before my subsequent statement
>       ("then the HMRC expert is
>       quite right to say the following").
>
> (3)  "How can anybody be right if they only seem
>       to understand 'X' and not 'Y'" ?  That's easy...
>       They just talk about 'X' and don't talk about 'Y'...
>      [Assuming other things are equal.]
>
Luckily Ronald picked up the baton before me <runs out of the stadium>
>
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> > ... It still makes the accounting more difficult.
>
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> Oh dear - can't you cope?
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > Don't be so childish.
>
> No, this is the childish thought:-
> "I wondered if there was anything HMRC could say to
> get the suppliers to come up with sesibly dated invoices."
>
You think it's childish to see if there's a rule that would stop
suppliers dating invoices early?

> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > Maybe you like to do a lot of unnecessary calculations but
> > sensible people try to streamline work as much as possible.
>
> It's not the accountants job to run their client's business for them.
> Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it (to make
> your job easier).  But at the end of the day, the business owner
> runs the business, and you just account for things the way that they
> have happened.  Your choice is to either do it, or lose the client.

Maybe that's your attitude. Many sensible accountants advise their
clients how to keep costs - including accounting fees - down.

> "Tim" wrote:
>> (3)  "How can anybody be right if they only seem
>>       to understand 'X' and not 'Y'" ?  That's easy...
>>       They just talk about 'X' and don't talk about 'Y'...
>>      [Assuming other things are equal.]
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> I don't follow the logic of this.  If they only
> talk about what they (seem to) understand, ...

I assumed they *do* understand (not just "seem to").

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... it doesn't guarantee they'll be right.

Of course there are never any guarantees.  Even if someone knew
about both 'X'  *and*  'Y', what they say might still not be right.
But Peter only asked ""how can [they] be right"
 -- not "how can [they] *always* be right".

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Besides, when X is "some aspect(s) of the whole" and Y is "all
> the other aspects of the whole", then even if they're right about X,
> they aren't necessarily going to be right about the whole, are they?

That's why they only talk about 'X' !!

They're not talking about the whole, so they
are both "not right" and "not wrong" about it.

> "Tim" wrote:
>> It's not the accountants job to run their client's business for them.
>> Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it (to make
>> your job easier). But at the end of the day, the business owner
>> runs the business, and you just account for things the way that they
>> have happened. Your choice is to either do it, or lose the client.
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Maybe that's your attitude. Many sensible accountants advise
> their clients how to keep costs - including accounting fees - down.

How is that different to what I said above?
I said:  "Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it..."

Are you suggesting that your clients **have to** follow your advice?

On 15 Jun, 08:39, "Tim"  wrote:
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> It's not the accountants job to run their client's business for them.
> >> Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it (to make
> >> your job easier). But at the end of the day, the business owner
> >> runs the business, and you just account for things the way that they
> >> have happened. Your choice is to either do it, or lose the client.
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > Maybe that's your attitude. Many sensible accountants advise
> > their clients how to keep costs - including accounting fees - down.
>
> How is that different to what I said above?
> I said:  "Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it..."
>
> Are you suggesting that your clients **have to** follow your advice?


Tim, it's obvious that this isn't really your field. Accountants
recommend ways of doing things. They also realise that different
clients have different abilities/interests at record keeping so an
accountant is willing to recommend how the client can do that which
he's happy to do before the accountant takes over. A client will
indicate to me what he's happy to do. Clients don't usually say they
want to do something unless there is a good reason. If a client
insisted on doing something an inefficient way without a good reason I
would tell him to find another accountant because I don't have the
time or inclination to regularly do a lot of unnecessary work.

In the example I am talking about the client had got his bookkeeping
into a mess. This was due to having a shareholder overseas doing the
bookkeeping but she became more and more unreliable. The best way to
sort everything out was for me to take it over, get it running
smoothly and then look at the alternatives for going forward. Although
me stepping in and doing this work is expensive it will provide a
couple of years of accurate management accounts - for the first time -
as well as fulfilling their statutory obligations.

>> >> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> >> >> > ... It still makes the accounting more difficult.
>> >> >>
>> >> > "Tim" wrote:
>> >> >> Oh dear - can't you cope?
>> >> >
>> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> >> > Don't be so childish.
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe you like to do a lot of unnecessary calculations but
>> >> > sensible people try to streamline work as much as possible.
>> >>
>> > "Tim" wrote:
>> >> It's not the accountants job to run their client's business for them.
>> >> Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it (to make
>> >> your job easier). But at the end of the day, the business owner
>> >> runs the business, and you just account for things the way that they
>> >> have happened. Your choice is to either do it, or lose the client.
>>
>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > Maybe that's your attitude. Many sensible accountants advise
>> > their clients how to keep costs - including accounting fees - down.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> How is that different to what I said above?
>> I said: "Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it..."
>>
>> Are you suggesting that your clients **have to** follow your advice?
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Tim, it's obvious that this isn't really your field. Accountants recommend
> ways of doing things. They also realise that different clients have
> different abilities/interests at record keeping so an accountant
> is willing to recommend how the client can do that which he's
> happy to do before the accountant takes over. A client will indicate
> to me what he's happy to do. Clients don't usually say they want
> to do something unless there is a good reason. If a client insisted
> on doing something an inefficient way without a good reason I
> would tell him to find another accountant because I don't have
> the time or inclination to regularly do a lot of unnecessary work.

Pretty much exactly what I was saying -- if you don't
like the amount of work required, you can just not
take on that client.  But you can't **tell them**
what to do and *expect* them to do it that way!

Tim wrote:

>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> (3)  "How can anybody be right if they only seem
>>>       to understand 'X' and not 'Y'" ?  That's easy...
>>>       They just talk about 'X' and don't talk about 'Y'...
>>>      [Assuming other things are equal.]
>>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> I don't follow the logic of this.  If they only
>> talk about what they (seem to) understand, ...
> 
> I assumed they *do* understand (not just "seem to").

So did I.  It doesn't matter.  I only included "seem to"
because it was in what you quoted above.

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> ... it doesn't guarantee they'll be right.
> 
> Of course there are never any guarantees.  Even if someone knew
> about both 'X'  *and*  'Y', what they say might still not be right.
> But Peter only asked ""how can [they] be right"
>  -- not "how can [they] *always* be right".

Agreed, the tone was more like "how can they *ever* be right".

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> Besides, when X is "some aspect(s) of the whole" and Y is "all
>> the other aspects of the whole", then even if they're right about X,
>> they aren't necessarily going to be right about the whole, are they?
> 
> That's why they only talk about 'X' !!

So what?  "Being right" isn't the same thing as "being right about
what they're talking about".  Peter asked "how can they be
right", not "how can they be right *about what they're talking
about*".

> They're not talking about the whole, so they
> are both "not right" and "not wrong" about it.

Nonsense.  It's possible to be wrong in a wider sense even if
one is right about a narrower matter.

They were right when saying that by invoicing early the client would
suffer the negative cashflow of output VAT earlier.  IIRC they went on
to say that therefore they didn't see the point of doing it.  Again, they
were probably right about that, i.e. they did indeed not *see* the point,
even if in fact there was one.

They implied that it would be a daft thing to do, and that is wrong.
It may not always be wrong, but it certainly is sometimes wrong.

On 15 Jun, 12:41, "Tim"  wrote:
> >> >> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> >> >> > ... It still makes the accounting more difficult.
>
> >> >> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> >> >> Oh dear - can't you cope?
>
> >> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> >> > Don't be so childish.
>
> >> >> > Maybe you like to do a lot of unnecessary calculations but
> >> >> > sensible people try to streamline work as much as possible.
>
> >> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> >> It's not the accountants job to run their client's business for them> >> >> Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it (to make
> >> >> your job easier). But at the end of the day, the business owner
> >> >> runs the business, and you just account for things the way that they> >> >> have happened. Your choice is to either do it, or lose the client.
>
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> > Maybe that's your attitude. Many sensible accountants advise
> >> > their clients how to keep costs - including accounting fees - down.
>
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> How is that different to what I said above?
> >> I said: "Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it..."
>
> >> Are you suggesting that your clients **have to** follow your advice?
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > Tim, it's obvious that this isn't really your field. Accountants recommend
> > ways of doing things. They also realise that different clients have
> > different abilities/interests at record keeping so an accountant
> > is willing to recommend how the client can do that which he's
> > happy to do before the accountant takes over. A client will indicate
> > to me what he's happy to do. Clients don't usually say they want
> > to do something unless there is a good reason. If a client insisted
> > on doing something an inefficient way without a good reason I
> > would tell him to find another accountant because I don't have
> > the time or inclination to regularly do a lot of unnecessary work.
>
> Pretty much exactly what I was saying -- if you don't
> like the amount of work required, you can just not
> take on that client.  But you can't **tell them**
> what to do and *expect* them to do it that way!

You are the only one who brought up the clients having to follow
advice.

> "Tim" wrote:
>> Pretty much exactly what I was saying -- if you don't
>> like the amount of work required, you can just not
>> take on that client. But you can't **tell them**
>> what to do and *expect* them to do it that way!
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> You are the only one who brought
> up the clients having to follow advice.

Hmmm.  Then why did you say:-

> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> Maybe that's your attitude. Many sensible accountants advise
>> their clients how to keep costs - including accounting fees - down.

In reply to my comment:-

> "Tim" wrote:
>> It's not the accountants job to run their client's business for them.
>> Sure, you can give advice, and hope that they follow it (to make
>> your job easier). But at the end of the day, the business owner
>> runs the business, and you just account for things the way that they
>> have happened. Your choice is to either do it, or lose the client.

?

>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> (3)  "How can anybody be right if they only seem
>>>>       to understand 'X' and not 'Y'" ?  That's easy...
>>>>       They just talk about 'X' and don't talk about 'Y'...
>>>>      [Assuming other things are equal.]
>>>
>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>>> I don't follow the logic of this.  If they only
>>> talk about what they (seem to) understand,
>>> it doesn't guarantee they'll be right.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Of course there are never any guarantees.  Even if someone knew
>> about both 'X'  *and*  'Y', what they say might still not be right.
>> But Peter only asked ""how can [they] be right"
>>  -- not "how can [they] *always* be right".
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Agreed, the tone was more like "how can they *ever* be right".

Ahem, even the town fool, who doesn't
understand anything, *can* be right *sometimes*.


"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> They were right when saying that by invoicing early the client would
> suffer the negative cashflow of output VAT earlier.  IIRC they
> went on to say that therefore they didn't see the point of doing it...
>
> They implied that it would be a daft thing to do, and that is wrong.
> It may not always be wrong, but it certainly is sometimes wrong.

No, it is *never* wrong, when **other things are equal**
(eg payment still occuring at the same time).

That's exactly why I included "[Assuming other things
are equal.]" above, at the end of my point (3).  See?

On 15 Jun, 20:42, "Tim"  wrote:
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> Pretty much exactly what I was saying -- if you don't
> >> like the amount of work required, you can just not
> >> take on that client. But you can't **tell them**
> >> what to do and *expect* them to do it that way!
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > You are the only one who brought
> > up the clients having to follow advice.
>
> Hmmm.  Then why did you say:-
>
> > "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> Maybe that's your attitude. Many sensible accountants advise
> >> their clients how to keep costs - including accounting fees - down.
>
Because they do.

You brought up the "tell them" and "expect" and then argued against
it!

>> > "Tim" wrote:
>> >> Pretty much exactly what I was saying -- if you don't
>> >> like the amount of work required, you can just not
>> >> take on that client. But you can't **tell them**
>> >> what to do and *expect* them to do it that way!
>
>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > You are the only one who brought
>> > up the clients having to follow advice.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Hmmm. Then why did you say:-
>>
>> > "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> >> Maybe that's your attitude. Many sensible
>> >> accountants advise their clients how to keep
>> >> costs - including accounting fees - down.
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Because they do.

Yes, I know that they give advice - which is
why I had said as much, even before you did.
Remember, I had said:-
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Sure, you can give advice, and hope that
>> they follow it (to make your job easier)...

So how was your comment different to mine?


"PeterSaxton" wrote
> You brought up the "tell them" and
> "expect" and then argued against it!

Yep, that's because your comment "Maybe that's your
attitude" made me think that your opinion was different
to mine, and the only difference that I could think of
that would be consistent with what you had said, was
that you *expected* them to do what you *told* them.

So - were you actually agreeing with me (if so,
then fine!) or if not, what did you disagree with?