OT19325 - PRT: Appendices
Appendix: 4: PRT/Accounts Reconciliations (modified
version)
The following paper was issued to UKOITC (The United Kingdom Oil
Industry Taxation Committee, formed in 1965) and BRINDEX on 29 July
1998.
PRT/ACCOUNTS RECONCILIATIONS (GUIDANCE MATERIAL)
- This paper updates the guidance material on
reconciliations following the agreement with industry
representatives in 1997.
- Because of the structure of PRT legislation,
expenditure claims and returns of incomings are made, in most
cases, long before the audited accounts are available. OTO's claims
examination methods involve some inspection of basic records and
consideration of accounting systems (see, for example, Appendix 12:
Continuous Compliance Reviews). This cannot take the form of a full
audit of each claim and return however. OTO needs further
reassurance and this can only be achieved by a reconciliation of
those claims and returns with the underlying records or
accounts.
- Reconciliations are partly produced by
companies for their own purposes, to give them confidence in claims
and returns made and to help track unclaimed PRT expenditure. The
way in which this is done may vary from company to company. OTO
policy is to show a degree of flexibility so that reconciliations
can be specifically tailored to each company’s circumstances,
accounting systems and controls. When reconciliations are submitted
it is very helpful to have a covering narrative explaining the
methods used, and highlighting problems encountered and how these
were resolved. This should reduce the time spent in subsequent
negotiation.
- One particular purpose of the reconciliation is
in relation to "miscellaneous" receipts such as compensation and
insurance recoveries and which should be identified. Broadly these
are receipts, the charge (or timing of charge) of which could be
uncertain. For corporation tax the treatment should be fairly
obvious on the face of the accounts or controlled by a supporting
schedule. For PRT the treatment may only be disclosed when the
reconciliation is examined.
- Another feature of the PRT rules is that there
will be a residue of expenditure, in principle claimable for PRT
purposes, which has not yet been claimed. There is a risk that this
unclaimed "pot" could be claimed more than once, or not at all. So
there has to be an ongoing memorandum of unclaimed amounts
submitted each year, as part of the full reconciliation, updated by
the deduction of claims made since the previous reconciliation and
by the addition of further unclaimed amounts.
- As regards the main incomings, sales, tariff
receipts and chargeable disposal receipts, these may each require a
separate reconciliation. The Section 493 adjustments should already
be reconciled between the CT accounts and the PRT returns but there
may need to be a separate reconciliation of the arm's length sales.
As regards tariffs, there are often timing differences between the
entries in the PRT1 s and the ledger entries which need to be
explained.
- In the past a full reconciliation of all claims
to statutory accounts (or other accounts used as a basis for
corporation tax) were required from all participators. It is still
open to them to prepare reconciliations by reference to the
statutory accounts if they wish, but an important recent change is
that the OTO may now be willing to agree a modified method of
reconciliation of claims rather than by reference to the accounts
used as a basis for corporation tax. The precise method to be
agreed will depend on the individual circumstances of the company
but broadly the approach is that all participators may be able to
reconcile the claims they have made to ledger balances rather than
statutory accounts etc. It follows that the key responsibility for
Schedule 5 claims lies with the Responsible Person while
co-participators should be able to rely on billings received from
the Responsible Person. (In appropriate cases the OTO may ask a
co-participator to demonstrate that its share of Schedule 5 claims
reconciles to operator billings.) Every participator will of course
still need to satisfy the OTO in respect of its own Schedule 6 and
7 claims.
- In the case of the Responsible Person the joint
venture billings are taken from the ledger accounts. So the
Schedule 5 claims can be reconciled direct to the ledger. It is
possible that OTO may wish to make a periodic inspection at ledger
level, in some cases in liaison with OGRO. Such a review might also
be undertaken in conjunction with or as part of the first claim
audit (see
OT18620) or a continuous compliance
review (see
OT18550).
- Where there is not a full reconciliation to the
statutory accounts it is essential that any differences picked up
by the auditors when the statutory accounts are completed, which
could have impact on the PRT claims and returns, are notified to
OTO.
- The continuing requirements are therefore
for:
- a full analysis of all claims made by the
company (including claim numbers and the date of claims);
- a reconciliation of the claimed amounts to
identifiable balances in either the statutory accounts or the
ledger accounts;
- a memorandum of unclaimed costs updated
every year;
- an auditable system for dealing with
miscellaneous income;
- a reconciliation of the main sources of
income;
- an explanation of discrepancies.
- It may be difficult to reconcile costs claimed
under Schedules 6 and 7 if there has not been a full reconciliation
of the Schedule 5 claims to the statutory accounts and when there
is no system within the ledger of separate "self" billings. Total
figures in the accounts will include amounts claimed and claimable
Schedule 5, amounts relating to non-taxable fields, amounts not
claimable for PRT, etc and to bring that figure down to the amounts
properly claimable under Schedule 6 and Schedule 7 may be a very
laborious exercise.
- As an alternative, and as envisaged by
paragraph 3 above, companies may wish to discuss with OTO their
particular systems and agree a method of reconciling Schedule 6 and
7 claims which is acceptable to both parties, or to demonstrate in
the accompanying narrative how those aspects of the reconciliations
have been arrived at. A further option is periodic audits by OTO of
the invoices involved in the claims.
- Any double or over-claims found in the
reconciliation process should be disclosed immediately. Normally
(see OT04720) there can be no netting off of over-claims and
culpability will be considered as soon as possible after the
disclosure of the error. OTO will wish to know whether errors
reflect systems failures, and about remedial action taken.
- While there is some overlap with other sections
of the office, particularly in relation to incomings, the PRT
Expenditure Inspector will take overall responsibility for the
examination of the reconciliation.
- It is envisaged that the reconciliations will
be produced within 15 months of the year end and so, for example,
for the calendar year 1997, reconciliations should be in by 31
March 1999. If delays occur OTO would wish to discuss the reasons.
Continuing delays in the submission of reconciliations may affect
the OTO's ability to make decisions on claims. This is because the
accuracy of claims and reliability of company systems has not been
verified by the claimant company.
- It is important that when a field interest
changes the purchaser gets access to all the information needed to
prepare outstanding reconciliations and to analyse expenditure so
far unclaimed.
- OTO would not expect reconciliations to be
submitted showing large differences or major balancing items
without explanation. At the same time, it is accepted that a
totally balanced reconciliation will often prove difficult to
achieve. As far as is reasonable having regard to the amount of the
difference, the company should endeavour to establish the reason or
likely reason for the difference. It will then be a matter for
judgement at what point any unexplained difference should be
accepted. Since the new methodology is more flexible than the one
previously operating, and since the reconciliations are more
closely attached to the day-to- day accounting records, it is
likely that it will be easier to find explanations in most
cases.