.png)
.png)
I seem to have come to a fundamental difference of opinion with the Inland Revenue on the subject of the recordkeeping requirements for a retail business under self assessment. The disagreements relate to two subjects:
(a) retention of till rolls; and
(b) records of drawings.
(a) retention of till rolls; and
(b) records of drawings.
I seem to have come to a fundamental difference of opinion with the Inland Revenue on the subject of the recordkeeping requirements for a retail business under self assessment. The disagreements relate to two subjects:
(a) retention of till rolls; and
(b) records of drawings.
My contention is that section 12B, Taxes Management Act 1970 does not require the retention of till rolls, but only the generation of such records as will enable accurate accounts to be prepared. Therefore, a daily record of cash taken in a cash receipts book, which cash receipts book is then kept for the requisite period, would seem sufficient under the terms of the Act.
The Inspector, however, is saying that the till rolls are the prime records and a record of cash takings is just a summary of those prime records.
As far as drawings are concerned, the Inspector's view is that 'It is perfectly clear that [drawings figures] are records required to enable a trader to submit a correct return', since any discrepancy in drawings would result in the accounts no longer balancing.
In view of the Revenue's published views on these matters, what are readers' opinions concerning the issues at stake? In respect of till rolls, are these views different depending on whether till rolls were put into the till in the first place and then destroyed, or never created in the first place? Is the situation akin, as the Inspector comments, to the retention of purchase and sale vouchers which could, on my interpretation of the Act, be destroyed once they have been entered in the books of prime entry?
(Query T15,685)--A.P.
(a) retention of till rolls; and
(b) records of drawings.
My contention is that section 12B, Taxes Management Act 1970 does not require the retention of till rolls, but only the generation of such records as will enable accurate accounts to be prepared. Therefore, a daily record of cash taken in a cash receipts book, which cash receipts book is then kept for the requisite period, would seem sufficient under the terms of the Act.
The Inspector, however, is saying that the till rolls are the prime records and a record of cash takings is just a summary of those prime records.
As far as drawings are concerned, the Inspector's view is that 'It is perfectly clear that [drawings figures] are records required to enable a trader to submit a correct return', since any discrepancy in drawings would result in the accounts no longer balancing.
In view of the Revenue's published views on these matters, what are readers' opinions concerning the issues at stake? In respect of till rolls, are these views different depending on whether till rolls were put into the till in the first place and then destroyed, or never created in the first place? Is the situation akin, as the Inspector comments, to the retention of purchase and sale vouchers which could, on my interpretation of the Act, be destroyed once they have been entered in the books of prime entry?
(Query T15,685)--A.P.
