Re: At the end of my teather with LSMB

[Stroller <..hidden..>]

On 28 May 2008, at 07:58, ..hidden.. wrote:

> Quoting Stroller <..hidden..>:
>
> > On 27 May 2008, at 18:06, ..hidden.. wrote:
> > > ... In the UK ... there is a requirement that invoices be
> > > consecutively
> > > numbered.
> >
> > Is this new?
> >
> > I did a "starting your own business" course at the local Chamber of
> > Commerce before I became self-employed 3 or 4 years ago, and my
> > understanding at that time was that invoice numbers had to be
> > *unique*, rather than consecutive.
>
> I was told this by my accountant.  The tax trolls get very unhappy if
> they perceive gaps in your numbering (what are you hiding in the gaps,
> you traitor?).  I'll ask him again when I see him.

Yes, but there's an obvious difference between:

00042
00043
00044
00046	(missing number precedes)

and:

20080501
20080502
20080503
20080512 (issued on the last day of May)
20080601
...
20090101

If one accepts that date-based invoice numbers are acceptable (and I  
contend the taxman might do so), no-one expects to see invoice number  
20081301, and the "gap" between 20080512 and 20080601 is quite  
logical & reasonable. It's the anomalies that raise the taxman's  
hackles, not the choice of implementation.

Stroller.