Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-16-2001, 08:33 PM
Kent Lawns Kent Lawns is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Midwest
Posts: 870
I'm puzzled by all the folks say they give their bank a different finacial statement than their tax returns.

I just cannot believe a banker would do any significant business whith you without the last 3 years personal and business returns.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-16-2001, 08:43 PM
turfman99 turfman99 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Forest Grove, Oregon outside Portland
Posts: 212
Kent Lawns:

I think you are seeing a lot of people jesting here. If you don't use computerized accounting it's a little easier to manipulate the numbers. Most companies are using computerized accounting programs as well as tax preperation softwares. it's very hard and a lot of work to fudge the numbers.

The references I made to it was a tounge in cheeck reference to the late 70's and 80's when that type of thing was the name of the game and a lot of companies were VERY leveraged and having huge amounts of debt was commonplace and book cooking was common place.

Most companies have very different relationships with banks and the tpes of funding vehicles out there are a lot different now as is the financial management that is used by landscape companies now.

Your right, even with minimal credit risk and exposure a lot of banks will want a financial statement at least at year end. A lot may not want that unless you are deliquent on a note or are very leveraged, chronically late pay or other trouble indicators.
__________________
turfman99
Dale Wiley



Landscape Contractor
Landscape Specialty Services
Forest Grove, OR
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-17-2001, 07:35 AM
HBFOXJr HBFOXJr is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern New Jersey
Posts: 1,700
Tman99

I didn't say to put the vehicle costs in with the labor but as a direct cost. Production labor, production equipment, production material and subcontractors are the 4 items that make up direct costs.

If all production equipment expenses are kept separate from non-production costing is very easy. And since hours is what we are selling, properly caluculating payroll is job number one.

In my payroll system production hours or all field billable hours are tracked. That is not difficult as we use coded hours from the time card for that. If the guys have a rainy day and are in the shop or are doing non-production work that gets a different code. Result is we always know how many field hours we sell.

To find our real hourly wage costs, we just divide gross pay by billable hours as recorded in payroll. Those same billable hours can be divided into overhead or production equipment costs to get the hourly rate for them.

I only do hourly or daily equipment job costing for occasionally used equipment of significant value like a $3K aerator, front end loader or trencher/backhoe. The other stuff like trucks and trailers used everyday are put in the pot and averaged across the hours.

It all gets easy when hours are tracked by use category like billable (production) and non production. Then you must have the costs in the right places.
__________________
Harold
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-17-2001, 12:17 PM
John Allin John Allin is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Erie, PA
Posts: 1,489
Kent,
Some business's do accrued financials for the bank and cash financials for tax purposes. When that happens, the two can be dramatically different for the same year. Banks and financial types like accrued financials over cash as it gives a truer picture of the company's position. However cash financials for tax purposes are also accurate as far as the IRS is concerned..... thus, under that particular set of circumstances you would have two sets of legal books for the same year.

Probably doesn't happen often, but I know it does happen.

As for a third set ??...... mum's the word....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-17-2001, 02:20 PM
bruces bruces is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Independence, MO
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally posted by John Allin
Kent,
Some business's do accrued financials for the bank and cash financials for tax purposes. When that happens, the two can be dramatically different for the same year. Banks and financial types like accrued financials over cash as it gives a truer picture of the company's position. However cash financials for tax purposes are also accurate as far as the IRS is concerned..... thus, under that particular set of circumstances you would have two sets of legal books for the same year.

Probably doesn't happen often, but I know it does happen.

As for a third set ??...... mum's the word....
As a CPA, I can tell you that the practice of cash for tax purposes and accrual for financial and banking purposes is very common. Like John says, they can be drastically different.

And, like he says, both are perfectly legitimate. The accrual basis statements are really necessary for an accurate picture of your business performance. If you have uncollected receivables or unpaid bills at the date of the financial statement of any significance, then accrual is really the only accurate method.

The cash basis may reflect where you are for tax purposes, but not really performance wise.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 AM.

Page generated in 0.08664 seconds with 9 queries