Twitter UK Ltd faces an embarrassing fine of £375 after failing to file its latest company accounts on time. Twitter-owned British subsidiary Tweetdeck is also late on turning in its financials and also faces a penalty. Companies House, which maintains the official register of businesses in the UK, expects annual summaries of …
Maybe they did do it in time but Twitted it to @CompaniesHouse
Blast I meant tweeted!
Give me an edit button!
The past participle of 'tweet' is of course 'twat', as any fule kno.
Twitted is the correct verb if you ask me. And, yes, I am a Twitter user.
Maybe they're deStarbucksing them?
I don't see how they can really do hiding the data here for fear of reprisal - this is referring to a HISTORICAL data, not something they can fix or alter post the events that occurred or the accounting date referred to.
What they are reporting is 6 months from LAST year, pre all the tax debacle by a whole year or more. So if they are modifying those data, that's illegal. If they have changed their business practices since, it doesn't affect that return. And if they are just hoping to hide those details, that's just adding suspicion onto facts that they required to publish at some point or other anyway (and by filing late, you're more likely to attract the attention of certain agencies).
So I would *hope* they aren't trying to cover anything up. At best they might be able to get fined constantly until the tax thing blows over, and *THEN* release, but that's likely to take a year or more now that legislation is starting to be pushed through aiming at the loopholes already published.
I would suggest it's more likely a) they are idiots, b) they are not idiots, and it affects something like a shareholder meeting or similar that's about to take place where "late filing" sounds less bad than "damn, we didn't make anything close to what we told you".
How can it be illegal to change something that doesn't yet exist? It's only once they've filed their accounts that the historical data exists. And even then, it's not uncommon for prior years to be restated later (in light of either changes to accounting practice, or new evidence that comes to light [usually fraud related]).
It's would be illegal to report something differently NOW that you would have reported differently THEN, because it's the exact same data it is acting on. You can't claim retroactively for things that didn't happen in that accounting period, so what you report for that period TODAY is identical to what you needed to report for that period on the final day of that period. Even if you lost a billion pounds between then and now, the facts for that period are still the same, but you might ask for it to be taken into consideration when, saying, paying owed tax in a lump sum.
Sure, you can restate previous years but that means YOU MADE AN ERROR or you wish to have other things taken into account. So if they are going back and changing anything at this late stage and *that's* the reason they haven't filed yet, it means they lied or messed up. The amount you are liable for for that accounting period DOES NOT CHANGE once the accounting period is closed, it is a fact - the only change possible is in the way you report it (i.e. accurately or not).
Which is why late filings and restatements often attract attention that you probably don't want (even if you're *correcting* them, they are perfectly entitled to ask why you messed it up before, and even charge you - nothing smells more suspicious than suddenly going back and restating a year of accounts, especially from a large famous corporation, especially as your first filing, and especially for a half-year of accounts - i.e. not exactly an administrative burden on your accountant).
They’re probably trying to work out a way to fit the accounts into 140 characters...
According to the gov website the fine is a whopping 7.5K for filing more than 6months late.
Does it then increase exponentially - or could a company like Twitter (or Starbucks or Google etc) just not bother filing and pay 7.5k every 6months ?
Companies are only allowed a certain number of 'whoopsies' before incurring much more severe penalties. IIRC correctly they can be struck off the Companies House register until they get their house in order (which in turn makes them unable to legally trade under that name) so it's very rarely allowed to get that far by any company with finance bods who even vaguely know what they're doing.
We asked Twitter what caused the slip-up. It has not replied.
"We asked Twitter what caused the slip-up. It has not replied."
It probably did, you just can't find the reply amidst the mountain of irrelevant bullshit.
Re: "We asked Twitter what caused the slip-up. It has not replied."
lol at the #bullshit of the #TwitterFail
It's obvious why they were late
The accounts dept were spending all day twitting around on twatter.
£30 to file paperwork?
It doesn't cost anything to file the accounts with Companies House.
The Annual Return costs £40 to file if you do it on paper or £13 if you do it online. It used to be £30 or £14. Tweetdeck filed their annual return on 15th February 2012 and the next one is due on 4th March 2013. It is the accounts that are overdue.
Re: £30 to file paperwork?
"It doesn't cost anything to file the accounts with Companies House."
Yes, apologies. I got my wires mixed in a too hasty edit and I hate it when that happens. It's been fixed.
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web video' cannon to SINK Netflix
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? I need a password to BRAKE? What? No! STOP! Aaaargh!
- Episode 13 BOFH: WHERE did this 'fax-enabled' printer UPGRADE come from?
- Product round-up Coming clean: Ten cordless vacuum cleaners