4 ms·

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 th

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.
    - eganist 6y ago
      That's fair. So long as they're still working with you through it (and if they goofed, are working to resolve it), it's fine. I was concerned for a moment they'd ghosted.
  - teruakohatu 6y ago
    > what's stopping you from naming them? And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming.
    - eganist 6y ago
      > And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming. Knowing who's reliable is everything. The extended thread above yours adds extra light: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101
codeulike 6y ago
I wouldn't go anywhere near the Big 4 to be honest, this whole thread is a non-issue and if anything just points to problems inside Companies House

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.
  - eganist 6y ago
    That's fair. So long as they're still working with you through it (and if they goofed, are working to resolve it), it's fine. I was concerned for a moment they'd ghosted.
- teruakohatu 6y ago
  > what's stopping you from naming them? And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming. Knowing who's reliable is everything. The extended thread above yours adds extra light: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101

codeulike 6y ago

I wouldn't go anywhere near the Big 4 to be honest, this whole thread is a non-issue and if anything just points to problems inside Companies House