Mike Roberts provides his view on the choices companies are making with regard to iXBRL
As companies prepare their tax filing, the corporate tax software tools available on the market today will manage two of the three functions automatically: generate the CT600 and the computation in the required format.
However, the main issue facing the corporate marketplace is how the third of the three documents required for a valid filing should be prepared in the required iXBRL format.
There are three main options available:
purchase a ‘tagging’ tool which will enable companies to mark up each set of accounts (either through automated routines or manually);
outsource the tagging to a third party provider; or
move to a full accounts production solution with the iXBRL tagging automated.
The top-end UK corporate market has relied on word processors and spreadsheets for preparing their accounts for many years. During the next three to five years, we expect the majority of these companies will move processes to an Accounts Production solution. There are a number of factors that fuel this decision-making process, including when to make a switch to an Accounts Production solution. As well as automatic iXBRL creation, other factors include:
increasing availability of international accounts – which can be used in shared service centres; and
centralising production of accounts – which will increase the ability to automate the production of accounts as well as drive standardisation.
All of these offer cost and accuracy benefits to users, but the question most of our clients are asking is: ‘when is the right time to move to a new system?’ Factors such as the mandatory electronic filing of accounts for Companies House in March 2013 and implementation of IFRS will heavily influence the right timing.
For those companies who are not ready to move to full Accounts Production, tagging is the alternative route. This involves continuing with current accounts production processes and then either using a tagging tool to mark up the iXBRL or sending the accounts to one of a plethora of outsource providers offering this service on clients’ behalf. Outsourcing obviously limits the impact on the finance department but is likely to be the most expensive option.
Conversely, those who do choose to tag in-house should undertake a full review to ensure they understand the time requirements associated with this work.
In our market, the majority of our clients that have already committed to a choice have selected Accounts Production as their solution.
As the deadline draws near, we expect the balance to shift to tagging (either internally or outsourced). However, this is merely delaying the inevitable move to the full Accounts Production package.
Mike Roberts, Managing Director, Corporate Market EMEA, Thomson Reuters
Home >Articles > UK companies' different approaches to iXBRL
UK companies' different approaches to iXBRL
Mike Roberts provides his view on the choices companies are making with regard to iXBRL
As companies prepare their tax filing, the corporate tax software tools available on the market today will manage two of the three functions automatically: generate the CT600 and the computation in the required format.
However, the main issue facing the corporate marketplace is how the third of the three documents required for a valid filing should be prepared in the required iXBRL format.
There are three main options available:
purchase a ‘tagging’ tool which will enable companies to mark up each set of accounts (either through automated routines or manually);
outsource the tagging to a third party provider; or
move to a full accounts production solution with the iXBRL tagging automated.
The top-end UK corporate market has relied on word processors and spreadsheets for preparing their accounts for many years. During the next three to five years, we expect the majority of these companies will move processes to an Accounts Production solution. There are a number of factors that fuel this decision-making process, including when to make a switch to an Accounts Production solution. As well as automatic iXBRL creation, other factors include:
increasing availability of international accounts – which can be used in shared service centres; and
centralising production of accounts – which will increase the ability to automate the production of accounts as well as drive standardisation.
All of these offer cost and accuracy benefits to users, but the question most of our clients are asking is: ‘when is the right time to move to a new system?’ Factors such as the mandatory electronic filing of accounts for Companies House in March 2013 and implementation of IFRS will heavily influence the right timing.
For those companies who are not ready to move to full Accounts Production, tagging is the alternative route. This involves continuing with current accounts production processes and then either using a tagging tool to mark up the iXBRL or sending the accounts to one of a plethora of outsource providers offering this service on clients’ behalf. Outsourcing obviously limits the impact on the finance department but is likely to be the most expensive option.
Conversely, those who do choose to tag in-house should undertake a full review to ensure they understand the time requirements associated with this work.
In our market, the majority of our clients that have already committed to a choice have selected Accounts Production as their solution.
As the deadline draws near, we expect the balance to shift to tagging (either internally or outsourced). However, this is merely delaying the inevitable move to the full Accounts Production package.
Mike Roberts, Managing Director, Corporate Market EMEA, Thomson Reuters
.jpg?sfvrsn=82480261_2)
