To Julie’s question, at a minimum SBR will save public practices time and cost. The level of savings depends on just how much of the SBR capability they choose to use and take advantage of.
Public practices could just wait for and use the SBR services supplied in the software they currently use to have access to pre-fill and auto fill of forms and lodgement via the SBR channel. In this minimalist approach, there will be some assurance work, as well as the need to register for an AUSkey, which is needed to report via SBR.
However, for public practices to really take advantage of potential benefits, they should consider how the mapping of the SBR reporting definitions (in the Taxonomy) can also provide access to more useful and real time financial reports for the practice and their clients.
We have seen examples from others in public practice where the taxonomy has been mapped to the accounting data for a business such that it can automate the creation of the working papers, the profit and loss and the balance sheet, then on to the income tax return and financial statements. Once mapped, these same reports can be used over and over again.
If you do this for one business, you might see that applying the same pattern, or even moving to a more uniform chart of accounts for several of your clients will allow you to automate the same reports for them. The concept is “map once – report many”, which involves the mapping, assurance of the mapping, assurance of the outputs, and then continual re-use. This will take the focus away from checking the transactions, inputs and completeness of records at the end of the year to assurance of the mapping process and optimising the real time financial data available and assurance of the input/transactions. Obviously if all of your clients have unique charts, then you would need to map them individually.
The SBR Taxonomy not only allows you to report to government, it can be used to create many financial reports that might be useful and very valuable for you and your clients.
Because the SBR Taxonomy is based on local and international standards, and will be compliant with current regulations, you can be assured that comparison of data in reports based on the taxonomy are in fact comparable. Others in public practice have found use and demand for benchmark comparison of businesses performance data to assist in business planning, and also to provide a better level of financial advice to businesses. If you have a look at the Dutch case studies on the SBR website, you will see examples of how public practices have changed their business processes to focus on real time high value financial performance and advice for their businesses. There are also some case studies (in video form) about how some large Australian practices are transforming some of their operations on the basis of time saved using the capabilities that are being offered by SBR.
In terms of Julie’s detailed questions, over time the functionality offered by varying levels of software will change and businesses and practitioners will have new choices on how they can use the various components based on whether the software they use has been SBR enabled. The level of work papers and records kept will not change. However, as discussed above, the processes to create these can be increasingly automated depending on how much of the SBR capabilities used. The accuracy of the information being reported via SBR is still the accountability of the party reporting it. Mapping of the correct data within the accounting systems is fundamental, however the correct classification and capture of business and accounting transactions is also essential. The treatment of debtors and creditors will not change under SBR, the implications of these will impact on what is prefilled only if the mapping takes account of them. In terms of a business reporting incorrect information, this again is the accountability for the reporting party and generally its correctness would be based on the correct mapping as well as the correct input/capture of the business transactions. If the business is not certain that these are correct, they should seek advice from a reporting professional.
After 1 July, we will start to see many local case studies of businesses and accountants using SBR in varying ways. In the meantime I suggest public practitioners work through the on-line training modules and have a look at some of the case studies on the SBR website, including those that illustrate how SBR will work for reporting professionals. Also, have a look at the SBR fact sheet titled “SBR intermediaries benefits”- and consider forwarding to your clients the SBR fact sheet titled “benefits to business”.
Like Julie, I’d like to hear what others are saying about SBR and look forward to reading all comments published on this blog.
Paul Madden
SBR Program Director