From: Peter Saxton 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Freelance IT consulting and tax - a question or two
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:11:51 +0100

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:01:03 +0100, "Tim"  wrote:

>> >"Peter Saxton" wrote
>> >> If you don't like the term statutory accounts don't use it.
>> >
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> >Peter, have you forgotten who started this
>> >sub-thread by bringing up the word "statutory"?
>> >Looking back...
>> >
>> >"Peter Saxton" wrote on 14/08/2006 at 18:11
>> >> ... submitting statutory accounts, abbreviated
>> >> accounts and corporation tax return.
>> >
>"Peter Saxton" wrote
>> What is the relevance of that?
>
>The relevance is that the person using the term
>(in the first instance) was *you*, not me, so your
>comment for me "not to use it" is meaningless.
>
I disagree. You are talking rubbish. I repeat - if you don't like the
term don't use it.

>"Peter Saxton" wrote
>> I'm saying there is nothing wrong with using the term
>> statutory accounts. If you don't want to use that term don't.
>
>But if *you* want to you the term, then you
>need to qualify it so that your audience know
>which version of "statutory" to which you refer!
>
Every accountant knows what the term statutory accounts means in
accountancy usage.  The term was used before abbreviated accounts were
thought of. Hence, the full accounts are called statutory accounts and
the abbreviated accounts are called abbreviated accounts.

>"Peter Saxton" wrote
>> If you're objecting to me using the term
>> then I'm sorry but I'm continuing to use it.
>
>There is no problem in using it, as long as
>you indicate which version you are using.
>
Isn't it obviou? If I say statutory accounts and abbreviated accounts
then it is obvious I mean full accounts and abbreviated accounts.
Nobody calls abbreviated accounts statutory accounts. Would I be
meaning statutory accounts and statutory accounts?

-- 
Peter Saxton from London
peter@petersaxton.co.uk