FC Bayern Forum

tflags wrote:

zozon wrote:What kind of tax is that? Paying taxes to revenue you didnt get? Man, that doesnt exist in Europe.

Lets put it this way - a company owns you money (for X reasons) and you get to pay tax for that money? When the income isnt even in bank accounts? No, it doesnt work that way.

Hello there. I once again find you on this thread. Ok, fine. Let's get into the nitty gritty details. Worldwide General Accepted Accounting Principles dictate that both expenses and revenues are accrued at the time of cost was incurred and sale/service was performed; not when you paid (on the first case) or when you collected the money (in the latter.)

Both rules are called, respectively, the Matching and the Revenue Recognition principles. You can look them up if you like. You do realize all services and/or sales have to be invoiced prior to an accouting adjustment don't you?

So if you want to accrue your expenses in the case of a bonus paid to an employee when you'd like or had the actual cash to pay him instead of when the reason for the bonus ocurred, then you'd be infringing a few accounting rules.

In the second case, if you decide to write down the revenuew or invoice a service when the customer pays (and you collected the dough) instead of when you performed the service . . . well . . . same case: accounting principle infringment.

So your next move will probably be to argue that this is not the case when in fact it is one of the more controlled govermental policies because you could actually backlog your entire tax burden if you chose to accrue it when you wanted instead of when the rules say so. . .

In this example, as you think it works, anyone could say, for example, that customers paid for other services instead of the once being invoiced and you could register the tax years later if you wanted. So as you can see, accouting rules exists to avoid these time of 'smart' situations.

So let me put it this way: It actually does work this way. .