3 ms·

Hi folks - we submitted The Matrix.org Foundation accounts via our accountants to UK Companies House several months ago. It's unclear why they're not showing o

Hi folks - we submitted The Matrix.org Foundation accounts via our accountants to UK Companies House several months ago. It's unclear why they're not showing on record; we initially understood it to be due to Covid delays, but we're now chasing the accountants to out find the specifics. If there turn out to be any fines due to late filing, these would not come out of donations, but whoever's fault it actually is for the delay (i.e. the accountants). Sorry for the drama, but this is not reason for panic. (Separately we need to publish a summary of the accounts for https://matrix.org/foundation https://matrix.org/foundation, which we are indeed running late on: it's been hard to prioritise it when we're on fire trying to improve Matrix's mass-market usability, given stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25812536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25812536).

Arathorn 6y ago
I've updated the Github issue with the last update from our accountants on this, after we already chased them in November: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2378#issuecomment-766808120 https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2378#issueco...
- eganist 6y ago
  You're under a bright enough limelight as of late, and especially right now, that the administrative overcharge of a reputable accounting firm such as any of the Big 4 may be worth the returns in the form of improved accountability - heh - and donations. It'd be nice if you could commit to this. If your accountants are lagging by almost 3 months without filing an extension, you owe it to your donors. Blaming the accountants is fine, but in the end, you picked them, and you chose to stay with them. (The value in the overcharge is really just that you've got a big bullseye you can throw darts at when accountability is required. This doesn't resonate with most entrepreneurs e.g. here on HN - as the greyed out comment alludes :) - but it does with more established firms largely for this reason.)
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Maybe there's something I'm missing but why are these accounts still not filed electronically? My accountant can do it just fine. Unless there's a specific reason why these accounts should be done on paper, the more reasonable and cost-effective solution would be to switch to an accountancy practice that isn't stuck in the past and there are plenty of those beyond the "big 4".
    - Arathorn 6y ago
      Our accountants say: > It is due to the fact the organisation is a community interest company. CIC’s have to complete a CIC34 form, these forms have to be filed alongside the accounts which has to be done via postal methods with a cheque for payment. There is no online method at the moment to file CIC34 forms. > Companies house, are from what I’ve heard, very particular about the CIC34 forms.
  - Arathorn 6y ago
    So our accountants might not be Big 4, but they're in the top 30 in the UK and considered reputable. I'm pretty sure that the overcharge of a Big 4 would swallow up donations much more than a screwup like this. That said, we obviously don't want a repeat performance of this, and will be figuring out what to do to avoid it.
    - eganist 6y ago
      It might be worth the quick math. As I put (edited, really) in my top comment, it's mostly just to have an entity you can reasonably go after if they goof. A related question: Considering how far back this goes, what's stopping you from naming them? Is resolution in progress, or have they just been dead silent?
      - Arathorn 6y ago
        They haven't been dead silent; last update was on Dec 15th saying they had been syncing with Companies House and the submission was in hand. I don't particularly want to name them though given I genuinely don't know at this point whether the bug is with Companies House or the accountants, and given the drama this has raised, I have no desire for a lynch mob to descend on them if they haven't done anything wrong.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fartcannon 6y ago
Man, ignore that guys ridiculous comment. If you fix that, he'll just find something else to whine about. It's like all the people bemoaning desktop Linux, when things like KDE have been providing (in my opinion) the best overall desktop experience for more than a decade. I chose Matrix/Riot years ago over the other options for two reasons: 1) I could host my own if I wanted, and 2) It didn't require any identifying information like telephones. Element's already great.

Arathorn 6y ago

I've updated the Github issue with the last update from our accountants on this, after we already chased them in November: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2378#issuecomment-766808120 https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2378#issueco...

eganist 6y ago
You're under a bright enough limelight as of late, and especially right now, that the administrative overcharge of a reputable accounting firm such as any of the Big 4 may be worth the returns in the form of improved accountability - heh - and donations. It'd be nice if you could commit to this. If your accountants are lagging by almost 3 months without filing an extension, you owe it to your donors. Blaming the accountants is fine, but in the end, you picked them, and you chose to stay with them. (The value in the overcharge is really just that you've got a big bullseye you can throw darts at when accountability is required. This doesn't resonate with most entrepreneurs e.g. here on HN - as the greyed out comment alludes :) - but it does with more established firms largely for this reason.)
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Maybe there's something I'm missing but why are these accounts still not filed electronically? My accountant can do it just fine. Unless there's a specific reason why these accounts should be done on paper, the more reasonable and cost-effective solution would be to switch to an accountancy practice that isn't stuck in the past and there are plenty of those beyond the "big 4".
  - Arathorn 6y ago
    Our accountants say: > It is due to the fact the organisation is a community interest company. CIC’s have to complete a CIC34 form, these forms have to be filed alongside the accounts which has to be done via postal methods with a cheque for payment. There is no online method at the moment to file CIC34 forms. > Companies house, are from what I’ve heard, very particular about the CIC34 forms.
- Arathorn 6y ago
  So our accountants might not be Big 4, but they're in the top 30 in the UK and considered reputable. I'm pretty sure that the overcharge of a Big 4 would swallow up donations much more than a screwup like this. That said, we obviously don't want a repeat performance of this, and will be figuring out what to do to avoid it.
  - eganist 6y ago
    It might be worth the quick math. As I put (edited, really) in my top comment, it's mostly just to have an entity you can reasonably go after if they goof. A related question: Considering how far back this goes, what's stopping you from naming them? Is resolution in progress, or have they just been dead silent?
    - Arathorn 6y ago
      They haven't been dead silent; last update was on Dec 15th saying they had been syncing with Companies House and the submission was in hand. I don't particularly want to name them though given I genuinely don't know at this point whether the bug is with Companies House or the accountants, and given the drama this has raised, I have no desire for a lynch mob to descend on them if they haven't done anything wrong.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fartcannon 6y ago

Man, ignore that guys ridiculous comment. If you fix that, he'll just find something else to whine about. It's like all the people bemoaning desktop Linux, when things like KDE have been providing (in my opinion) the best overall desktop experience for more than a decade. I chose Matrix/Riot years ago over the other options for two reasons: 1) I could host my own if I wanted, and 2) It didn't require any identifying information like telephones. Element's already great.