UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on February 06, 2018, 09:01:02 AM
-
Madeleine Fund Accounts 2016 - 2017 attached.
-
Madeleine Fund Accounts 2016 - 2017 attached.
Interesting!
-
And so it comes around again, which I suppose must be worth a couple of pages.
Everything is in order, but I am frightfully sorry that this is about it. No fines, and the bare bones, which is all perfectly legal.
Personally, I can't understand a word of it, and don't really care anyway. I was only ever interested in my ability to produce my own accounts.
-
I don't understand these things either, but there seems little in the way of fresh income, other than book proceeds
-
My only interest is that demolition of most arguments put up by sceptics wrt to the accounts is achievable just by playing a straight bat.
I am astounded that supporters never clocked it, preferring it seemed instead to make comments about paper clips and Sr Amaral's fund [for about the past three or four years anyway]. I exclude J-P from my comment.
I'll jump over the fence and give y'all a hand with this one if you like... 8(>((
-
My only interest is that demolition of most arguments put up by sceptics wrt to the accounts is achievable just by playing a straight bat.
I am astounded that supporters never clocked it, preferring it seemed instead to make comments about paper clips and Sr Amaral's fund [for about the past three or four years anyway]. I exclude J-P from my comment.
I'll jump over the fence and give y'all a hand with this one if you like... 8(>((
I for one have no interest in the accounts so you can jump anywhere you want afaiac
-
My only interest is that demolition of most arguments put up by sceptics wrt to the accounts is achievable just by playing a straight bat.
I am astounded that supporters never clocked it, preferring it seemed instead to make comments about paper clips and Sr Amaral's fund [for about the past three or four years anyway]. I exclude J-P from my comment.
I'll jump over the fence and give y'all a hand with this one if you like... 8(>((
You have caught them out, have you?
-
My only interest is that demolition of most arguments put up by sceptics wrt to the accounts is achievable just by playing a straight bat.
I am astounded that supporters never clocked it, preferring it seemed instead to make comments about paper clips and Sr Amaral's fund [for about the past three or four years anyway]. I exclude J-P from my comment.
I'll jump over the fence and give y'all a hand with this one if you like... 8(>((
It seems the new guy has been put to work. Do they know he's giving us information, I wonder? Funding libel trials don't come cheap and we now know where the office containing those paper clips is. An interesting donation, too. The gift that keeps on giving.
-
It seems the new guy has been put to work. Do they know he's giving us information, I wonder? Funding libel trials don't come cheap and we now know where the office containing those paper clips is. An interesting donation, too. The gift that keeps on giving.
What has this comment got to do with anything? I don't understand what what you are saying.
-
The accounts include several interesting claims about Amaral and an abduction.
-
The accounts include several interesting claims about Amaral and an abduction.
I don't suppose that we could have a Cite, could we? Not that I would insist, of course.
-
I don't suppose that we could have a Cite, could we? Not that I would insist, of course.
Look at the accounts.
-
You have caught them out, have you?
Where them = supporters being unable to raise a cogent simple argument to defend the accounts then yes.
[which is what my first post somewhat controversially suggested].
-
Look at the accounts.
I clocked the "discredited Portuguese detective G Amaral" bit. Any other reference escapes me.
-
Yes, petulant little comment. Not what you expect in a statement of accounts
-
Where them = supporters being unable to raise a cogent simple argument to defend the accounts then yes.
[which is what my first post somewhat controversially suggested].
What's to "defend"?
The accusers have been whistling in the wind for over ten years now and < in my opinion> they have never produced a case to answer. Plenty of vitriol, but nothing of substance and boring in the extreme.
-
It seems the new guy has been put to work. Do they know he's giving us information, I wonder? Funding libel trials don't come cheap and we now know where the office containing those paper clips is. An interesting donation, too. The gift that keeps on giving.
51k owed by The Fondation to Isabel ?
Not to mention donations now being openly listed as "restricted funds".
Comments on the ECHR for some reason.
-
Yes, petulant little comment. Not what you expect in a statement of accounts
In my opinion they are very healthy though ... and interesting that Kate's book is still being sold and making profit to boost Madeleine's fund.
-
In my opinion they are very healthy though ... and interesting that Kate's book is still being sold and making profit to boost Madeleine's fund.
Interesting conclusion?
-
Look at the accounts.
Why?
-
Where them = supporters being unable to raise a cogent simple argument to defend the accounts then yes.
[which is what my first post somewhat controversially suggested].
I have no need to defend the accounts. Should I?
-
What's to "defend"?
The accusers have been whistling in the wind for over ten years now and < in my opinion> they have never produced a case to answer. Plenty of vitriol, but nothing of substance and boring in the extreme.
But always countered with the same stupidity from supporters [there is no other way of describing it].
Were you all as good as you say then you would have done a proper job on it. quote .....The fact you didn't tells me all I need to know...unquote ?{)(**
-
51k owed by The Fondation to Isabel ?
Not to mention donations now being openly listed as "restricted funds".
Comments on the ECHR for some reason.
Is this illegal?
-
I clocked the "discredited Portuguese detective G Amaral" bit. Any other reference escapes me.
You should have read a bit further in the same paragraph to where it says the judgement was made against Kate & Gerry.
-
Sorry luv I am not into silly syntax ping pong.
I'll write it all slowly in monosyllables if helps you understand it.
Oh. I see. Okay. And we all know where thesis going.
-
You should have read a bit further in the same paragraph to where it says the judgement was made against Kate & Gerry.
Nope ... I saw that too ... just before I jumped to the bit concerning the ECHR.
-
I don't suppose that we could have a Cite, could we? Not that I would insist, of course.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/0Irp3UzkoDKD1M9-5c_x54VMWHl8ADKCyM4gBfTvy2A/application-pdf
-
The accounts include several interesting claims about Amaral and an abduction.
They refer to amaral as.. Discredited... He can't sue because it's true it seems... And confirms the ECHR application... Interesting
-
Nope ... I saw that too ... just before I jumped to the bit concerning the ECHR.
Yeah I passed comment on that in post #170.
-
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/0Irp3UzkoDKD1M9-5c_x54VMWHl8ADKCyM4gBfTvy2A/application-pdf
These aren't Claims, of course. So let's not be silly about this.
-
These aren't Claims, of course. So let's not be silly about this.
I liked the bit about if the McCann case is solved the funds will be used to pursue similar cases in UK or Portugal or elsewhere. Even to think there could be an end in sight and some other poor family will benefit is an honourable ambition.
-
I liked the bit about if the McCann case is solved the funds will be used to pursue similar cases in UK or Portugal or elsewhere. Even to think there could be an end in sight and some other poor family will benefit is an honourable ambition.
Not a sensible thing to think about at the moment.
-
Is this illegal?
I doubt it but then I have never said the Foundation is/was/ tiswas/illegal. In fact customarily I would say quite the opposite.
The only argument against the accounts is on a moral front. Those who have been around long enough and have
been paying attention will have realised that I do a particular branch of the law and mechanics[among other things] not morality.
[he said rather pompously] @)(++(*
-
Why?
It gives you an idea about the current discussion.
-
Not a sensible thing to think about at the moment.
I think Kate has always hoped a solution is just around the corner.
-
They refer to amaral as.. Discredited... He can't sue because it's true it seems... And confirms the ECHR application... Interesting
Interesting only from the point of view that it has no relevance to the company accounts.
Unless you subscribe to a theory that the appeal to the ECHR is Madeleines Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd v The State of Portugal.
-
Interesting only from the point of view that it has no relevance to the company accounts.
Unless you subscribe to a theory that the appeal to the ECHR is Madeleines Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd v The State of Portugal.
It's interesting that they should mention it and interesting that they referred to amaral as, discredited
-
It's interesting that they should mention it and interesting that they referred to amaral as, discredited
Neither has any bearing on the documentation they are required to submit by law.
The clues are in here...................https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-of-a-company-annual-requirements/life-of-a-company-part-1-accounts
-
Neither has any bearing on the documentation they are required to submit by law.
The clues are in here...................https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-of-a-company-annual-requirements/life-of-a-company-part-1-accounts
Then it is interesting that they have chosen to include those details... As I have, already pointed out
-
It's also interesting that in the accounts, they refer to the trial as a libel trial... Which many have tried to pretend it was not... Which gives a pointer to what the ECHR action... Which many are trying to pretend is not happening ...will be concerned with... Denial seems to be in full flow... How apt
-
Then it is interesting that they have chosen to include those details... As I have, already pointed out
Interesting as I have observed. Why bother to put in irrelevancies?
-
Interesting as I have observed. Why bother to put in irrelevancies?
Why indeed.. That is, what I find interesting
-
It's also interesting that in the accounts, they refer to the trial as a libel trial... Which many have tried to pretend it was not... Which gives a pointer to what the ECHR action... Which many are trying to pretend is not happening ...will be concerned with... Denial seems to be in full flow... How apt
Whatever it was the courts did not find in the McCanns favor.
Whatever happens with the ECHR remains to be seen. On past performances it could take another ten years if it goes the full trip.
-
Whatever it was the courts did not find in the McCanns favor.
Whatever happens with the ECHR remains to be seen. On past performances it could take another ten years if it goes the full trip.
I don't think anyone is in a particular hurry.... Apart from amaral whose life is still on hold and has no access to his own money if recent reports, are to be believed
-
Madeleine McCann's parents may pay £750,000 for private search if police hunt is axed
ByTom PettiforTracey Kandohla
8 FEB 2018
The cash is in the Find Madeleine fund, made up mainly of donations and profits from mum Kate’s bestselling book on the disappearance.
Madeleine McCann’s parents have nearly £750,000 to pay for a private search for their daughter if the police hunt is axed.
The cash is in the Find Madeleine Fund, made up mainly of donations and profits from mum Kate’s bestselling book on the disappearance.
It is showing a profit of £793,516, but nearly £65,000 has been set aside to pay for expenses and a failed libel battle against a Portuguese ex-detective who accused the parents of accidentally killing Madeleine and hiding her body.
Kate and dad Gerry, both 49, have seven weeks left of guaranteed funding for Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange, due to end after a £11.3million hunt.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “The Madeleine Fund gives Kate and Gerry the option to pick up their own inquiries again, if they choose, with private investigators.”
Madeleine, three, vanished from an apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007 while her parents were eating tapas with pals at a restaurant nearby.
She would now be nearly 15.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-pay-750000-11995167
-
Madeleine McCann's parents may pay £750,000 for private search if police hunt is axed
ByTom PettiforTracey Kandohla
8 FEB 2018
The cash is in the Find Madeleine fund, made up mainly of donations and profits from mum Kate’s bestselling book on the disappearance.
Madeleine McCann’s parents have nearly £750,000 to pay for a private search for their daughter if the police hunt is axed.
The cash is in the Find Madeleine Fund, made up mainly of donations and profits from mum Kate’s bestselling book on the disappearance.
It is showing a profit of £793,516, but nearly £65,000 has been set aside to pay for expenses and a failed libel battle against a Portuguese ex-detective who accused the parents of accidentally killing Madeleine and hiding her body.
Kate and dad Gerry, both 49, have seven weeks left of guaranteed funding for Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange, due to end after a £11.3million hunt.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “The Madeleine Fund gives Kate and Gerry the option to pick up their own inquiries again, if they choose, with private investigators.”
Madeleine, three, vanished from an apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007 while her parents were eating tapas with pals at a restaurant nearby.
She would now be nearly 15.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-pay-750000-11995167
There's an amount owing to creditors of £65,008. Part of it is to pay what they owe to the lawyer they used in the trial. No provision has been made for any other sums owed in Portugal.
Ms Duarte is owed £ 51,718
Trade Creditors £ 1,030
Tax £ 1,436
Accrued expenses £ 10,834
Total £ 65,008
-
There's an amount owing to creditors of £65,008. Part of it is to pay what they owe to the lawyer they used in the trial. No provision has been made for any other sums owed in Portugal.
Ms Duarte is owed £ 51,718
Trade Creditors £ 1,030
Tax £ 1,436
Accrued expenses £ 10,834
Total £ 65,008
That's these tabloids for you, isn't it? Can get nothing right 8(>((
-
Madeleine McCann's parents may pay £750,000 for private search if police hunt is axed
ByTom PettiforTracey Kandohla
8 FEB 2018
The cash is in the Find Madeleine fund, made up mainly of donations and profits from mum Kate’s bestselling book on the disappearance.
Madeleine McCann’s parents have nearly £750,000 to pay for a private search for their daughter if the police hunt is axed.
The cash is in the Find Madeleine Fund, made up mainly of donations and profits from mum Kate’s bestselling book on the disappearance.
It is showing a profit of £793,516, but nearly £65,000 has been set aside to pay for expenses and a failed libel battle against a Portuguese ex-detective who accused the parents of accidentally killing Madeleine and hiding her body.
Kate and dad Gerry, both 49, have seven weeks left of guaranteed funding for Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange, due to end after a £11.3million hunt.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “The Madeleine Fund gives Kate and Gerry the option to pick up their own inquiries again, if they choose, with private investigators.”
Madeleine, three, vanished from an apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007 while her parents were eating tapas with pals at a restaurant nearby.
She would now be nearly 15.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-pay-750000-11995167
Ah another opus from Kate’s spin partner.
-
Interesting that, Kate's book is, still earning a substantial amount
-
Interesting that, Kate's book is, still earning a substantial amount
Think so,over two years ago the fund supposedly had 750 grand ready for a private investigation,the more things alter the more they stay the same.
Madeleine McCann's parents to launch new private search with appeal fund's remaining £750k
ByMatthew Drake
19:06, 19 DEC 2015UPDATED19:11, 19 DEC 2015
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-launch-new-7041769
-
Think so,over two years ago the fund supposedly had 750 grand ready for a private investigation,the more things alter the more they stay the same.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-launch-new-7041769
84 K donated to the fund this year from proceeds from Kate's book
-
84 K donated to the fund this year from proceeds from Kate's book
It does not say when the 84k was earned; merely in which FY it was posted to the CLG account.
-
It does not say when the 84k was earned; merely in which FY it was posted to the CLG account.
It’s never what is said, it is what isn’t said.
-
It’s never what is said, it is what isn’t said.
Indeed, some one has to dig for and some is irrelevant:
Assets increased in value by ca 1.4% over the last FY.
For the last two FYs the company has traded at a loss.
The company has not achieved its objectives despite spending >£4MM. since inception.
The royalties from the book are apparently "restricted funds".
Two directors lost a libel action they brought.
In 2018 £84K in royalties was paid into the companies coffers but mentioned in the 2017 directors report.
[the last two items falling into the irrelevant category].
I suppose Joe Public reading the report might raise his eyebrows at the potential wording of one particular paragraph if one chose to rewrite it whilst conveying the same message:
"Discredited cop wins in abortive libel action brought against him".
Joe might well ask "If he was discredited how come he didn't lose?"
-
Indeed, some one has to dig for and some is irrelevant:
Assets increased in value by ca 1.4% over the last FY.
For the last two FYs the company has traded at a loss.
The company has not achieved its objectives despite spending >£4MM. since inception.
The royalties from the book are apparently "restricted funds".
Two directors lost a libel action they brought.
In 2018 £84K in royalties was paid into the companies coffers but mentioned in the 2017 directors report.
[the last two items falling into the irrelevant category].
I suppose Joe Public reading the report might raise his eyebrows at the potential wording of one particular paragraph if one chose to rewrite it whilst conveying the same message:
"Discredited cop wins in abortive libel action brought against him".
Joe might well ask "If he was discredited how come he didn't lose?"
Joe might well ask "If he was discredited how come he didn't lose?...joe might ask that but that would be because joe does not understand how the law works.
-
Joe might well ask "If he was discredited how come he didn't lose?...joe might ask taht but that would be because joe does not understand how the law works...you claimed you did
Yeah well we can't all be Einsteins.
-
Does anyone know why the last Maddie Fund accountants resigned?
The derogatory comment made in the recent tax return gives us an insight into the type of people employed by the McCanns, thoroughly unprofessional imo and deserves to be reported to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The inference that Maddie was abducted is also legally false.
-
Does anyone know why the last Maddie Fund accountants resigned?
The derogatory comment made in the recent tax return gives us an insight into the type of people employed by the McCanns, thoroughly unprofessional imo and deserves to be reported to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The inference that Maddie was abducted is also legally false.
then report them and tell us what response you get
-
Does anyone know why the last Maddie Fund accountants resigned?
The derogatory comment made in the recent tax return gives us an insight into the type of people employed by the McCanns, thoroughly unprofessional imo and deserves to be reported to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The inference that Maddie was abducted is also legally false.
I don't think that accountants would be responsible for those petty remarks as they are irrelevant to the financial report. Sounds more like a disgruntled director.
-
I don't think that accountants would be responsible for those petty remarks as they are irrelevant to the financial report. Sounds more like a disgruntled director.
Isn't that the function of the accountants, to make the return?
-
Isn't that the function of the accountants, to make the return?
They certify that the accounts are correct, but I don't suppose there's anything to stop directers adding little messages, though I can't imagine many do.
-
Isn't that the function of the accountants, to make the return?
No!
There is no legal requirement to have the financial statements for Small Companies prepared by professional accountants.
It is the responsibilty of the board of directors to sign the balance sheet and make the return.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-of-a-company-annual-requirements/life-of-a-company-part-1-accounts
eta
https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company
-
It does not say when the 84k was earned; merely in which FY it was posted to the CLG account.
Indeedie... ^*&&
-
Joe might well ask "If he was discredited how come he didn't lose?...joe might ask that but that would be because joe does not understand how the law works.
What an arrogant sweeping statement. You have no idea how ignorant or not joe public are. (oops I missed out the l in that word)
It would be interesting to fnd out how Joe public feel about the parents spending 51k for a lawyer from a fund they contributed to 'find Maddie' .
The accountant would not put any such remarks on the submitted accounts. The Inland revenue would pay no heed to them. e.g. it would not affect the tax return amount one iota.
nasty, remarks from nasty people IMO.
-
What an arrogant sweeping statement. You have no idea how ignorant or not joe pubic are.
It would be interesting to fnd out how Joe public feel about the parents spending 51k for a lawyer from a fund they contributed to 'find Maddie' .
The accountant would not put any such remarks on the submitted accounts. The Inland revenue would pay no heed to them. e.g. it would not affect the tax return amount one iota.
nasty, remarks from nasty people IMO.
Oh that money was squandered away long ago.It's their 'own' money being used now 8(0(*
-
Oh that money was squandered away long ago. It's their 'own' money being used now 8(0(*
Oh so it is...tsk It will be interesting to find if they are keeping money aside for Amaral next book, in case they need to sue him again...
-
Oh that money was squandered away long ago. It's their 'own' money being used now 8(0(*
I see Kate McCann's book as a fund-raising effort just like any other. It may be 'their money' in law, but it was pledged elsewhere before the book even went on sale.
Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/15/mcanns-book-search-madeleine
-
I see Kate McCann's book as a fund-raising effort just like any other. It may be 'their money' in law, but it was pledged elsewhere before the book even went on sale.
Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/15/mcanns-book-search-madeleine
Is it true they have ring fenced money? do we know what this is for?
-
Is it true they have ring fenced money? do we know what this is for?
Paying legal fees in Portugal.
-
Is it true they have ring fenced money? do we know what this is for?
In the year 2011-2012 the restricted funds appeared. £ 550,000 was donated from 'Book Income'. It was to be used for 'the direct costs of the search for, and the investigation into, the disappearance of Madeleine'.
In the Notes it says that a total of £ 738,487 was donated from post-tax royalties and other income from sales of the book. The £ 188,487 seems to have gone into the unrestricted funds along with an amount of £117,906 making a total Income of £ 306,393.
So not all of the money from sales of the book has been put into the restricted funds.
-
In the year 2011-2012 the restricted funds appeared. £ 550,000 was donated from 'Book Income'. It was to be used for 'the direct costs of the search for, and the investigation into, the disappearance of Madeleine'.
In the Notes it says that a total of £ 738,487 was donated from post-tax royalties and other income from sales of the book. The £ 188,487 seems to have gone into the unrestricted funds along with an amount of £117,906 making a total Income of £ 306,393.
So not all of the money from sales of the book has been put into the restricted funds.
Play spot the difference?
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
-
The abduction word comes and goes, doesn't it?
-
The abduction word comes and goes, doesn't it?
It would be bad PR if she wasn't abducted, and besides it is eye catching and looks better than "parents go out wining and dining every night and leave their daughter alone who then tries to get to them through an unlocked door to find them and.... has never been seen since!" yes it is a bit of a mouthful...
In red italics just another theory being banded about...
-
The abduction word comes and goes, doesn't it?
Yes it does. my posts are being well swiped hahahahaha. There is no evidence of abduction ofcourse it is just parents *thoughts* to what may have happened to their daughter.
..1...2...3...
-
I see Kate McCann's book as a fund-raising effort just like any other. It may be 'their money' in law, but it was pledged elsewhere before the book even went on sale.
Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/15/mcanns-book-search-madeleine
8@??)(
Well done kate !
-
The abduction word comes and goes, doesn't it?
I was thinking more in terms of:
1) The definition of "resricted" seemingly being:
"It was to be used for 'the direct costs of the search for, and the investigation into, the disappearance of Madeleine'".
2) The company objectives are:
"2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice".
The conditions of 1 are already satisfied in 2 so why the designation "restricted" to part of the assets ?
-
I was thinking more in terms of:
1) The definition of "resricted" seemingly being:
"It was to be used for 'the direct costs of the search for, and the investigation into, the disappearance of Madeleine'".
2) The company objectives are:
"2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice".
The conditions of 1 are already satisfied in 2 so why the designation "restricted" to part of the assets ?
In the Y/E 2008 accounts 'Merchandising and Campaign costs' appear to be entered as the direct costs, with 'Administration expenses' being entered as indirect costs or overheads.
The problem is that if the restricted funds are to be used only for 'Merchandising and Campaign costs' what will the directors do if they run out of unrestricted funds? Can they sell merchandise and run a campaign if they have no funds to pay the accountant, auditor or insurance costs? Clearly not.
If funds are moved from restricted to unrestricted funds when needed then the restriction would appear to be meaningless.
-
In the Y/E 2008 accounts 'Merchandising and Campaign costs' appear to be entered as the direct costs, with 'Administration expenses' being entered as indirect costs or overheads.
The problem is that if the restricted funds are to be used only for 'Merchandising and Campaign costs' what will the directors do if they run out of unrestricted funds? Can they sell merchandise and run a campaign if they have no funds to pay the accountant, auditor or insurance costs? Clearly not.
If funds are moved from restricted to unrestricted funds when needed then the restriction would appear to be meaningless.
Without getting into the nitty-gritty, is preparing or approving accounts for the Find Madeleine fund complex?
I prepared and approved accounts for a small club, and it was little more complex than brought forward + changes = carried forward.
Presumably as the fund is a limited company, there are more legal requirements to meet.
But is it rocket science? Does it even need qualified accountants to draw up the accounts?
-
Without getting into the nitty-gritty, is preparing or approving accounts for the Find Madeleine fund complex?
I prepared and approved accounts for a small club, and it was little more complex than brought forward + changes = carried forward.
Presumably as the fund is a limited company, there are more legal requirements to meet.
But is it rocket science? Does it even need qualified accountants to draw up the accounts?
It's not at all complicated, just simple arithmetic. I'm not an accountant but I have prepared end of year accounts and filed them with HMRC. If an accountant has competent lesser qualified staff his or her input may amount to nothing more than 'signing off' another's work.
The responsibility lies with the owners or directors for the accuracy of the figures. Simple but accurate record keeping is key. As long as every transaction is correctly recorded the Year End accounts will be correct.
It is the recording of transactions which Auditors look at. Every transaction should be supported by paperwork. If you sell something for £500, for example, there should be an invoice or till receipt for that amount. They will check a random selection of transactions, not all of them.
-
Without getting into the nitty-gritty, is preparing or approving accounts for the Find Madeleine fund complex?
I prepared and approved accounts for a small club, and it was little more complex than brought forward + changes = carried forward.
Presumably as the fund is a limited company, there are more legal requirements to meet.
But is it rocket science? Does it even need qualified accountants to draw up the accounts?
See post #61 and attachments.
-
It's not at all complicated, just simple arithmetic. I'm not an accountant but I have prepared end of year accounts and filed them with HMRC. If an accountant has competent lesser qualified staff his or her input may amount to nothing more than 'signing off' another's work.
The responsibility lies with the owners or directors for the accuracy of the figures. Simple but accurate record keeping is key. As long as every transaction is correctly recorded the Year End accounts will be correct.
It is the recording of transactions which Auditors look at. Every transaction should be supported by paperwork. If you sell something for £500, for example, there should be an invoice or till receipt for that amount. They will check a random selection of transactions, not all of them.
Many thanks.
-
I think Michael Wright booked the move;
I contacted a removals firm in Lagos in my name, and I collected packing boxes and adhesive tape. We then began to pack all the stuff we wanted to keep, such as letters, postcards, etc.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm
So Wright booked it and Corner's company paid for it. Perhaps because most removal companies require payment on delivery.
-
I think Michael Wright booked the move;
I contacted a removals firm in Lagos in my name, and I collected packing boxes and adhesive tape. We then began to pack all the stuff we wanted to keep, such as letters, postcards, etc.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm
So Wright booked it and Corner's company paid for it. Perhaps because most removal companies require payment on delivery.
The sense of my post appears to have been lost for some reason. I was discussing an amount of £ 1,822 for shipping costs to 'River', Jon Corner's company, paid by the Fund in the 2008 Y/E accounts. It was suggested that this may have been for shipping the McCann's belongings back to the UK after they left Portugal in September 2007.
-
The fact that the Directors of the company are legally responsible for the accounts would mean they would need to employ a professional accountant who would have a professional liability to the directors that everything was legally correct
The idea of not employing a, professional in such a case is ridiculous imo
-
The fact that the Directors of the company are legally responsible for the accounts would mean they would need to employ a professional accountant who would have a professional liability to the directors that everything was legally correct
The idea of not employing a, professional in such a case is ridiculous imo
Hiring a professional accountant doesn't free directors of their legal responsibilities. If their accountant is negligent and that leads to extra money having to be paid out the company is still liable for the debt.
If the accountant admits liability and has public liability insurance he/she my agree to make an insurance claim and all will be well.
If the accountant denies liability the company will have to consider suing. If it can prove it's case the accountant will be ordered to reimburse it and probably compensate it also. Whether the money will then be forthcoming will depend on the accountant's financial circumstances.
All accountants can be described as professional, but not all can be assumed to be reputable and responsible.
-
Hiring a professional accountant doesn't free directors of their legal responsibilities. If their accountant is negligent and that leads to extra money having to be paid out the company is still liable for the debt.
If the accountant admits liability and has public liability insurance he/she my agree to make an insurance claim and all will be well.
If the accountant denies liability the company will have to consider suing. If it can prove it's case the accountant will be ordered to reimburse it and probably compensate it also. Whether the money will then be forthcoming will depend on the accountant's financial circumstances.
All accountants can be described as professional, but not all can be assumed to be reputable and responsible.
And all of this basic speculation adds to the thread topic in what way?
-
Speculation is good.
Where would we be without it 8)-)))
-
Hiring a professional accountant doesn't free directors of their legal responsibilities. If their accountant is negligent and that leads to extra money having to be paid out the company is still liable for the debt.
If the accountant admits liability and has public liability insurance he/she my agree to make an insurance claim and all will be well.
If the accountant denies liability the company will have to consider suing. If it can prove it's case the accountant will be ordered to reimburse it and probably compensate it also. Whether the money will then be forthcoming will depend on the accountant's financial circumstances.
All accountants can be described as professional, but not all can be assumed to be reputable and responsible.
As I said the accountant is responsible professional.. Is it compulsory for accountants to have indemnity insurance... It's not a very professional profession if it isnt
-
And all of this basic speculation adds to the thread topic in what way?
It doesn't.
A basic enquiry as to whether something as simple as the Find Madeleine fund needs prof-accountants turned from a simple response into drivel about liability insurance. Prune the thread there and nothing will be lost.
Elsewhere, the poster on here known as ***** has clarified that an appeal to the ECHR goes through two stages at the European Commission, before it may appear at the ECHR, hence nothing in the records as yet.
If we could have the simple version, things would get clearer.
Or we can have fog and confusion.
-
It doesn't.
A basic enquiry as to whether something as simple as the Find Madeleine fund needs prof-accountants turned from a simple response into drivel about liability insurance. Prune the thread there and nothing will be lost.
Elsewhere, the poster on here known as ***** has clarified that an appeal to the ECHR goes through two stages at the European Commission, before it may appear at the ECHR, hence nothing in the records as yet.
If we could have the simple version, things would get clearer.
Or we can have fog and confusion.
[Edited - deleted goading comment]
If the directors are legally responsible for accounts then they would need to ensure they we're properly drawn up by a qualified accountant because the accountant would then be responsible to the directors..... I've explained all this before
The idea of having an amateur draw up accounts, when you have a legal responsibility is ridiculous as I pointed out
As regards the ECHR it was Mr Bennett who explained about the stages as he had personally submitted a claim... [Edited - deleted goading comment]
[Edited - deleted 2 goading comments]
-
It doesn't.
A basic enquiry as to whether something as simple as the Find Madeleine fund needs prof-accountants turned from a simple response into drivel about liability insurance. Prune the thread there and nothing will be lost.
Elsewhere, the poster on here known as ***** has clarified that an appeal to the ECHR goes through two stages at the European Commission, before it may appear at the ECHR, hence nothing in the records as yet.
If we could have the simple version, things would get clearer.
Or we can have fog and confusion.
Didn't think so.
Don't know about anyone else but I think the forum could do with a bit less fog and confusion and more meaningful discussion.
We don't all sing from the same hymn sheet on here which I think makes us approaching unique; certainly something worth celebrating and worth valuing by discussing opinions with a little less rancour.
The news for anyone interested was that the accounts for Madeleine's fund were on the internet and there really wasn't too much to be made of that but for the reference to the ECHR perhaps and the fact that profits from the sale of Kate's book are still healthy.
The rest I found dull as dishwater and I bet I'm not alone in that.
-
And all of this basic speculation adds to the thread topic in what way?
It's fact, not speculation. I think being informed about Year End accounting is helpful given the thread topic.
-
It's fact, not speculation. I think being informed about Year End accounting is helpful given the thread topic.
Yeah ... it was the caveats ... which had nothing to do with the particular subject of discussion ... you introduced within your posts with which I remain uneasy.
-
I think sils post is far more goading than anything I have posted... To describe my post, as.. Drivel... Is clearly goading
-
As I said the accountant is responsible professional.. Is it compulsory for accountants to have indemnity insurance... It's not a very professional profession if it isnt
It's clearly not compulsory under the law. It is a condition of membership of professional bodies, however. Best practice would suggest making possession a contractual condition.
-
Yeah ... it was the caveats ... which had nothing to do with the particular subject of discussion ... you introduced within your posts with which I remain uneasy.
Perhaps you could explain what exactly you are uneasy about, because I truly don't understand.
-
The fact that the Directors of the company are legally responsible for the accounts would mean they would need to employ a professional accountant who would have a professional liability to the directors that everything was legally correct
The idea of not employing a, professional in such a case is ridiculous imo
That is incorrect.
See atachments to post #61.
-
As I said the accountant is responsible professional.. Is it compulsory for accountants to have indemnity insurance... It's not a very professional profession if it isnt
PI insurance is not mandatory by law. Some professional bodies may however insist on it for their members.
The only insurance, compulsory by law, is Employer's Liability Insurance.
-
Didn't think so.
Don't know about anyone else but I think the forum could do with a bit less fog and confusion and more meaningful discussion.
We don't all sing from the same hymn sheet on here which I think makes us approaching unique; certainly something worth celebrating and worth valuing by discussing opinions with a little less rancour.
The news for anyone interested was that the accounts for Madeleine's fund were on the internet and there really wasn't too much to be made of that but for the reference to the ECHR perhaps and the fact that profits from the sale of Kate's book are still healthy.
The rest I found dull as dishwater and I bet I'm not alone in that.
What even the bit about trading at a loss for two consecutive years?
-
That is incorrect.
See atachments to post #61.
they don't need a professional accountant.... But it would be rather silly not to... As they have legal liabilities... And one with PI... Wise too
-
they don't need a professional accountant.... But it would be rather silly not to... As they have legal liabilities... And one with PI... Wise too
Regardless the directors are responsible at law, a position they cannot abrogate.
The rest is merely your opinion not a matter of law.
The fund is worth less than £1MM. Any half decent contract engineer is handling up to ten times that on a regular basis and could knock off those accounts in a few days, nothing complicated.
-
Regardless the directors are responsible at law, a position they cannot abrogate.
The rest is merely your opinion not a matter of law.
The fund is worth less than £1MM. Any half decent contract engineer is handling up to ten times that on a regular basis and could knock off those accounts in a few days, nothing complicated.
And how, does one find a half decent project engineer and know that he is half and not a quarter decent...no money back, no guarantee might be your idea of a good deal it isn't mine.... You can represent your self in court but as the legal profession say... He who does that has a fool for a client
-
And how, does one find a half decent project engineer and know that he is half and not a quarter decent...no money back, no guarantee might be your idea of a good deal it isn't mine.... You can represent your self in court but as the legal profession say... He who does that has a fool for a client
It's obviously sensible to be cautious but nothing is ever guaranteed no matter how careful people are. Professional people can make mistakes, be careless and get into financial difficulties just like everyone else. Getting them to admit it is the difficult part.
-
It's obviously sensible to be cautious but nothing is ever guaranteed no matter how careful people are. Professional people can make mistakes, be careless and get into financial difficulties just like everyone else. Getting them to admit it is the difficult part.
Agreed and I've dealt with an incompetent accountant and solicitor.... That's why it's best to go with someone who has indemnity who you can sue if necessary
-
Agreed and I've dealt with an incompetent accountant and solicitor.... That's why it's best to go with someone who has indemnity who you can sue if necessary
Were you able to get compensated?
-
Were you able to get compensated?
With the solicitor yes
As people on this forum know my identity I can't comment on the accountant
-
And how, does one find a half decent project engineer and know that he is half and not a quarter decent...no money back, no guarantee might be your idea of a good deal it isn't mine.... You can represent your self in court but as the legal profession say... He who does that has a fool for a client
I said Contract(s) Engineer.
Well you will not find one looking at ACCA or ACMA that's for sure.
Any contracts engineer working in gas, oil , process plant or construction will be up to the job.
Did you not once boast that you represented yourself?
-
What even the bit about trading at a loss for two consecutive years?
Why should that be of concern to me? Why should it be worthy of comment from you for that matter? Was there fraud or something else perfidious about it?
-
I said Contract(s) Engineer.
Well you will not find one looking at ACCA or ACMA that's for sure.
Any contracts engineer working in gas, oil , process plant or construction will be up to the job.
Did you not once boast that you represented yourself?
No I boasted I sued the law and I won... I did have to tell the barrister how to handle the case though
-
I said Contract(s) Engineer.
Well you will not find one looking at ACCA or ACMA that's for sure.
Any contracts engineer working in gas, oil , process plant or construction will be up to the job.
Did you not once boast that you represented yourself?
So what would be the benefit of asking a contract engineer to complete my company accounts... Why not just employ an accountant
-
So what would be the benefit of asking a contract engineer to complete my company accounts... Why not just employ an accountant
It could be cheaper.
-
Why should that be of concern to me? 1) Why should it be worthy of comment from you for that matter? 2 Was there fraud or something else perfidious about it?
1) It is to do with the Madeleine McCann case. Last time I looked this board purported to have that as its subject matter. Added to that I like looking at and playing with numbers. A case of arrested development I guess.
2) No; I have never suggested there is/was/are delete as applicable.[you don't pay attention do you?]
3) Looking at numbers can tell one a lot.......provided one knows what one is looking at. I do but a lot of people on here just trap off pretending they do....[in the nicest possible way of course he said donning his arrogant hat].
I am not too sure about perfidious though; I can do a nice line in Perfidia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgvjGnkrE7Q
-
So what would be the benefit of asking a contract engineer to complete my company accounts... Why not just employ an accountant
What have your accounts to do with anything?
I was just demonstrating that the fund has a piss balling amount of assets that could be accounted by anyone with a reasonable grasp of company accounting practices. That is probably why it is classed as a small company and falls under small company rules requiring neither professional accountants nor audit unless requested by members.
It's hardly GEA or Praxair is it?
-
What have your accounts to do with anything?
I was just demonstrating that the fund has a piss balling amount of assets that could be accounted by anyone with a reasonable grasp of company accounting practices. That is probably why it is classed as a small company and falls under small company rules requiring neither professional accountants nor audit unless requested by members.
It's hardly GEA or Praxair is it?
Anyone suffering the extreme amount of accusations and criticisms that the Mccanns have is very wise, IMO, to have employed professional accountants.
What ever they do .... or dont do, is wrong in the eyes of some.
-
Anyone suffering the extreme amount of accusations and criticisms that the Mccanns have is very wise, IMO, to have employed professional accountants.
What ever they do .... or dont do, is wrong in the eyes of some.
Could you imagine the uproar if the mccanns had employed a contract engineer to draw up their accounts.... There have been some daft suggestions but this one takes some beating
-
Could you imagine the uproar if the mccanns had employed a contract engineer to draw up their accounts.... There have been some daft suggestions but this one takes some beating
I think the only one making the suggestion is you. What Alice and I both said is that we could do it. I don't see either of us suggesting that we should or would.
-
I think the only one making the suggestion is you. What Alice and I both said is that we could do it. I don't see either of us suggesting that we should or would.
No... I said it was possible but unwise to use a non professional... Alice insisted I was wrong suggesting therefore that it would have been a reasonable thing to do
-
I could do it. But when I do the accounts of other people I expect to get paid for it. It isn't something that anyone can do.
-
No... I said it was possible but unwise to use a non professional... Alice insisted I was wrong suggesting therefore that it would have been a reasonable thing to do
Your understanding of what was said and mine differ then.
-
Your understanding of what was said and mine differ then.
Yes it does... Alice says the accounts could have been done by a contract engineer I believe that is a ridiculous suggestion
-
Yes it does... Alice says the accounts could have been done by a contract engineer I believe that is a ridiculous suggestion
Alice, why specifically a Contracts Engineer, I wonder ? Do you mean a Chartered Engineer ?
The main criteria as to the ability of any engineer to do accounts, would be, IMO, the fact that he has run a Company of some size .... and has had the responsibility of overseeing the profits and financial workings. If the Company were large enough, he would have a Financial Director who would get the figures together, but the M.D. must have the ability to check everything in the Company is done correctly ..... and that includes overseeeing the Financial Director.
If the company was small then it is likely that it would employ an external Accountant.
If a part of a very large group then there would almost certainly be a Divisional Financial Section which would oversee all the senior financial people including Directors
Anyone who runs a Company, engineer or not, if able to do so, could do the necessary paperwork, but most would chose to employ either an internal qualified accountant or use the setrvices of an external qualified accountant.
If anything goes wrong, then the accountant carries the buck.
AIMO, but most is fact.
-
What even the bit about trading at a loss for two consecutive years?
It seems that the change to Financial Reporting Standard 102 1A from UK GAAP has required small companies to show these losses. The accounts for Y/E 2016 showed this. Nothing about a loss in the Profit and Loss account is mentioned;
Unrestricted Funds 167,574
Restricted Funds 547,226
714,800
The figures brought forward from 2016 to the 2017 accounts show these different figures;
Unrestricted Funds 185,507
Restricted Funds 560,645
income/Expenditure A/c (31,352)
714,800
So the total is the same, but the details have been changed. It seems profits and losses will be seen in future.
-
It seems that the change to Financial Reporting Standard 102 1A from UK GAAP has required small companies to show these losses. The accounts for Y/E 2016 showed this. Nothing about a loss in the Profit and Loss account is mentioned;
Unrestricted Funds 167,574
Restricted Funds 547,226
714,800
The figures brought forward from 2016 to the 2017 accounts show these different figures;
Unrestricted Funds 185,507
Restricted Funds 560,645
income/Expenditure A/c (31,352)
714,800
So the total is the same, but the details have been changed. It seems profits and losses will be seen in future.
So a change in reporting practices... Would you expect non accountants to keep up with these changes
-
So a change in reporting practices... Would you expect non accountants to keep up with these changes
Those working in the sector would all have been aware of it, including support staff.
-
Those working in the sector would all have been aware of it, including support staff.
Fair enough... Those working in the accounting industry...
-
How useful are audits? Not very, according to those probing the collapse of Carillion;
Rachel Reeves MP, who chairs the Business Committee, added: "On this morning's evidence from KPMG and Deloitte, these audits appear to be a colossal waste of time and money, fit only to provide false assurance to investors, workers and the public."
Of course it may be that they misunderstand the role of an auditor;
KPMG's head of audit Michelle Hinchliffe told MPs: "We check the figures and make sure they are in accordance with accounting standards but it's not a guarantee that the company will continue or that the management are making effective decisions."
https://news.sky.com/story/regulator-and-auditor-spectators-on-carillion-mp-11261940
-
How useful are audits? Not very, according to those probing the collapse of Carillion;
Rachel Reeves MP, who chairs the Business Committee, added: "On this morning's evidence from KPMG and Deloitte, these audits appear to be a colossal waste of time and money, fit only to provide false assurance to investors, workers and the public."
Of course it may be that they misunderstand the role of an auditor;
KPMG's head of audit Michelle Hinchliffe told MPs: "We check the figures and make sure they are in accordance with accounting standards but it's not a guarantee that the company will continue or that the management are making effective decisions."
https://news.sky.com/story/regulator-and-auditor-spectators-on-carillion-mp-11261940
Your post is specifically in relation to Madeleine's Fund ... in what way?
-
Your post is specifically in relation to Madeleine's Fund ... in what way?
It's relevant because I have had the impression in the past that some people seem to think that auditors certify that a company is well-run. Having audited accounts doesn't tell us anything except that the accounts comply with certain financial standards.
-
It's relevant because I have had the impression in the past that some people seem to think that auditors certify that a company is well-run. Having audited accounts doesn't tell us anything except that the accounts comply with certain financial standards.
Exactly what are you implying with regard to Madeleine's Fund?
-
Yes it does... Alice says the accounts could have been done by a contract engineer I believe that is a ridiculous suggestion
Why?
He has the skill sets required so why is it ridiculous in your opinion?
-
Why?
He has the skill sets required so why is it ridiculous in your opinion?
for the reasons I have already posted
-
Alice, why specifically a Contracts Engineer, I wonder ? Do you mean a Chartered Engineer ?
The main criteria as to the ability of any engineer to do accounts, would be, IMO, the fact that he has run a Company of some size .... and has had the responsibility of overseeing the profits and financial workings. If the Company were large enough, he would have a Financial Director who would get the figures together, but the M.D. must have the ability to check everything in the Company is done correctly ..... and that includes overseeeing the Financial Director.
If the company was small then it is likely that it would employ an external Accountant.
If a part of a very large group then there would almost certainly be a Divisional Financial Section which would oversee all the senior financial people including Directors
Anyone who runs a Company, engineer or not, if able to do so, could do the necessary paperwork, but most would chose to employ either an internal qualified accountant or use the setrvices of an external qualified accountant.
If anything goes wrong, then the accountant carries the buck.
AIMO, but most is fact.
If anything is wrong the company directors carry the can back.
See Companies Act 2006.
-
Exactly what are you implying with regard to Madeleine's Fund?
I'm not implying anything. I'm explaining something about what auditors can and cannot tell us about a company because I have seen it implied in the past that auditing provides a seal of approval. It doesn't, except in a very specific area.
-
for the reasons I have already posted
Your opinion in this instance is incorrect consequently worthless.
-
Your opinion in this instance is incorrect consequently worthless.
As is yours
I think we are, all aware of your motives as you have stated them clearly... Come here... Throw some stones in the water and see what ripples they cause... If you want to believe that the mccanns could have employed anyone but a registered firm of accountants to submit their accounts... So be it... I think it's a ridiculous suggestion... End of... No more ripples
-
I am in the mood for points @)(++(*
You are casting pearls before swine G-Unit, they are bleedin' clueless and collectively could not lead a cat to cat mint.
At least one swine here is capable of differentiating between pearls being cast and muck being raked - not terribly disingenuously as it happens ... so well past time to desist, I'm thinking.
-
I'm not implying anything. I'm explaining something about what auditors can and cannot tell us about a company because I have seen it implied in the past that auditing provides a seal of approval. It doesn't, except in a very specific area.
Indeed G. It depends on the remit of the audit. Checking for fraud one would go through every single transaction,receipt etc. other than that someone, anyone, really can be employed to tick boxes.
So to concur having an audit done does not guarantee the actual state of the company. They can only check what information they have access to.
-
Indeed G. It depends on the remit of the audit. Checking for fraud one would go through every single transaction,receipt etc. other than that someone, anyone, really can be employed to tick boxes.
So to concur having an audit done does not guarantee the actual state of the company. They can only check what information they have access to.
I have audited books ... and take it from me ... every single penny was accounted for and no expenditure passed without a bona fide receipt being inspected.
I really do not know what sort of crooks some of the members appear to have been mixing with to have such low opinions of folk ... terribly sad really, in my opinion.
-
I have audited books ... and take it from me ... every single penny was accounted for and no expenditure passed without a bona fide receipt being inspected.
I really do not know what sort of crooks some of the members appear to have been mixing with to have such low opinions of folk ... terribly sad really, in my opinion.
Perhaps we’ve all simply had the luck of the McCanns when choosing PIs ?
-
Perhaps we’ve all simply had the luck of the McCanns when choosing PIs ?
That would be the private investigators whose work was used by Operation Grange when collating information? Not to mention those whose good work you have been assiduously defending?
-
I have audited books ... and take it from me ... every single penny was accounted for and no expenditure passed without a bona fide receipt being inspected.
I really do not know what sort of crooks some of the members appear to have been mixing with to have such low opinions of folk ... terribly sad really, in my opinion.
Do you mean you had your books audited or you performed audits?
It depends what you mean by 'passed'. Can expenditure be 'failed'?
I have worked for very large companies and I can assure you that the auditors would find it impossible to inspect every receipt, or even every transaction.
That doesn't mean the auditors are crooks, obviously.
-
That would be the private investigators whose work was used by Operation Grange when collating information? Not to mention those whose good work you have been assiduously defending?
Exton, whose work was used by OG, was subcontracted by Halligen. The McCanns would not have known who Halligen would employ.
-
I have audited books ... and take it from me ... every single penny was accounted for and no expenditure passed without a bona fide receipt being inspected.
I really do not know what sort of crooks some of the members appear to have been mixing with to have such low opinions of folk ... terribly sad really, in my opinion.
Trial balance or full dog and pony show?
-
I have audited books ... and take it from me ... every single penny was accounted for and no expenditure passed without a bona fide receipt being inspected.
I really do not know what sort of crooks some of the members appear to have been mixing with to have such low opinions of folk ... terribly sad really, in my opinion.
I am not sure I LIKE your insinuation about US mixing with crooks. We should remind people that the McCanns said they would use the money for searching for their daughter... they used whole lot more on lawyers and hotels it would seem!
Why are they hiding their full accounts not really as transparent as we thought now is it. Why is that?
enbolden text.. Hi John... not abusive at all is it? ^*&&
-
Do you mean you had your books audited or you performed audits?
It depends what you mean by 'passed'. Can expenditure be 'failed'?
I have worked for very large companies and I can assure you that the auditors would find it impossible to inspect every receipt, or even every transaction.
That doesn't mean the auditors are crooks, obviously.
I have audited books ... I had sight of everything I was signing off without exception.
I have audited equipment ... I inspected and accounted for every single item on the inventories. Items not on the premises for whatever reason had to be accounted for.
An audit is a very serious business and if auditors are as you say not following a paper trail or these days an electronic one they are not doing their job and neither it appears are others in these very large companies.
-
Trial balance or full dog and pony show?
Hang on till I Google that.
-
I have audited books ... I had sight of everything I was signing off without exception.
I have audited equipment ... I inspected and accounted for every single item on the inventories. Items not on the premises for whatever reason had to be accounted for.
An audit is a very serious business and if auditors are as you say not following a paper trail or these days an electronic one they are not doing their job and neither it appears are others in these very large companies.
Suddenly you're an auditor? Give over! Your lack of knowledge is showing. 8)-)))
In particular you clearly don't understand that auditors inspect samples to obtain sufficient evidence to form an opinion about a class of transactions. Inspecting all the transactions in each class would be impossible in companies with turnovers of millions of pounds.
-
Suddenly you're an auditor? Give over! Your lack of knowledge is showing. 8)-)))
In particular you clearly don't understand that auditors inspect samples to obtain sufficient evidence to form an opinion about a class of transactions. Inspecting all the transactions in each class would be impossible in companies with turnovers of millions of pounds.
You must think that Auditors and Accountants are very stupid people. Believe me, they are not. They are employed by The Inland Revenue who ultimately do their own checks. And bang goes your LICENCE if you are caught.
I did my own Accounts and those of others, and had to produce receipts always.
I have never understood why clients think that Auditors and Accountants work for them. They don't.
-
You must think that Auditors and Accountants are very stupid people. Believe me, they are not. They are employed by The Inland Revenue who ultimately do their own checks. And bang goes your LICENCE if you are caught.
I did my own Accounts and those of others, and had to produce receipts always.
I have never understood why clients think that Auditors and Accountants work for them. They don't.
Are you saying the all accountants and auditors work for HMRC? @)(++(*
In an ideal world all receipts will be kept. In the real world they sometimes get lost. Petrol receipts are the most likely candidates for this, I have found. Many accountants (and HMRC) will accept the expense as genuine though if it appears on the company bank or credit card statement. The transaction can't be included in Vat calculations without a receipt however.
-
Are you saying the all accountants and auditors work for HMRC? @)(++(*
In an ideal world all receipts will be kept. In the real world they sometimes get lost. Petrol receipts are the most likely candidates for this, I have found. Many accountants (and HMRC) will accept the expense as genuine though if it appears on the company bank or credit card statement. The transaction can't be included in Vat calculations without a receipt however.
Oh ... so receipts are important after all then ... glad to hear it. As far as I am concerned regarding lost petrol receipts or no proof of travel or subsistence expenses is concerned ... no documentation = no reimbursement.
-
Oh ... so receipts are important after all then ... glad to hear it. As far as I am concerned regarding lost petrol receipts or no proof of travel or subsistence expenses is concerned ... no documentation = no reimbursement.
Reimbursement isn't a decision which accountants and auditors would be involved in, except in respect of their own employees. That's a decision for the employer.
You would have had a problem with the systems used by large companies who give employees company credit cards for miscellaneous expenses. No reimbursement required.
-
Reimbursement isn't a decision which accountants and auditors would be involved in, except in respect of their own employees. That's a decision for the employer.
You would have had a problem with the systems used by large companies who give employees company credit cards for miscellaneous expenses. No reimbursement required.
The Company saves the tax. And Receipts would have been issued.
-
The Company saves the tax. And Receipts would have been issued.
I don't get your meaning, but whatever it is it's still nothing to do with accountants or auditors.
-
Reimbursement isn't a decision which accountants and auditors would be involved in, except in respect of their own employees. That's a decision for the employer.
You would have had a problem with the systems used by large companies who give employees company credit cards for miscellaneous expenses. No reimbursement required.
According to you I would have difficulty with the local knitting bee accounts ... but apart from that ... in my opinion it is way past the time for more off topic posts.
The topic is: Madeleine Fund - End of Year Accounts 2016-2017.
-
According to you I would have difficulty with the local knitting bee accounts ... but apart from that ... in my opinion it is way past the time for more off topic posts.
The topic is: Madeleine Fund - End of Year Accounts 2016-2017.
The discussion was 'the role of accountants and auditors in preparing the end of year accounts 2016-2017'. Clearly totally unrelated. @)(++(*
-
Hang on till I Google that.
That's all the response I need TY.