Most of us are happy to leave all this to our accountants, who have the expertise that we need in such matters. May I, though, offer a couple of thoughts:

1. Do keep an eye on developments for yourself. When UITF Abstract 40 first came in I remember getting advice from one firm of accountants that I doubted. Naturally, we were all trying to leave as much as we could out of our WIP valuations under the new rules and there was debate about how contingency fee work should be treated. Everything, they insisted, had to be valued at full "selling" price but for this firm, as for most others, the hike in valuation and thus in taxable profit was enormous. They then changed their view and decided that contingency fee work shoulod be valued at cost, for which there seemed to be no logic at all. I had to challenge them very firmly and do quite a lot of research, including asking around the profession, before we finally obtained good guidance. So.......you need to keep a watch on such things and make sure you get involved if ever you have the slightest doubt about the advice you are getting. (see below for guidance on UITF40)

2. Be thoughtful in your choice of accountants. Small local firms may charge less but may lack the resources to obtain and give the very best and latest advice. Although stictly speaking they should offer a full professional service my experience above may tell you that they do not always do so. Big national firms should provide an exemplary service but they may prove costly and you may find only junior staff doing your work. Mid-tier firms may be the best bet - big enough to have all the resources you need but not too expensive. There are no rules on this. You can only trust your own judgment.

3. Do have quarterly accounts done. You need to monitor your performance against budget and the small additonal cost is well worthwhile. In fact, the extra cost is often not at all bad. By reviewing your accounts every three months your accountants will cut down on the work needed at the year-end, so the cost over a full year should not rise too much.

Tax Note: UITF Abstract 40 and WIP Valuation
In case anyone is still uncertain, this is the basis for WIP valuation that I understand has finally settled into place but I must point out that this was in late 2005 - things may have moved on since then. Your accountants should know. I gather that different firms are still applying varying rules and would be delighted if they would share them with us all here.
1) Contingency fee work:
  a) On cases that have not yet settled at year end - Nil value
  b) On cases that have settled but on which a fee is still being negotiated - Revenue recognition
  basis at full billing level, based on an estimation case by case of the fee that is expected to be
  agreed.
  c) On cases that were not settled at the year end but which do so by the time the accounts are
  signed off - Cost basis. This is a post-year end event. It of course puts a whole new pressure
  on us to finalise the annual accounts quickly and so minimise the numbers of matters that are
  swept up in this in this period between year end and sign off.
Please note that I understand that some firms are valuing ALL contingency fee cases at Nil.
2) Other work:
It all hinges on whether you are entitled to a fee if a matter should be stopped for any reason. If you would charge the client for work done to date then full-value revenue must be recognised. If not, the rules under 1) above apply. Remember to look at such matters as conveyancing. In many firms, matters that "go off" before completion either do not get billed or may result in a nominal fee only. They can be argued as being, either entirely or to some extent, conditional fee in nature.

 Tax Note: Websites
We gather that the Revenue is trying to suggest that website set up costs should be capitalised but they are quoting two old court cases, both of which pre-date the Internet!
If you have trouble with this simply refer them (and your accountant if necessary) to UITF Abstract 29, which requires website planning costs to be charged against profits when they are incurred. Only if the website directly generates sales can these costs be capitalised. As most firms would want to minimise tax payable, and few if any do actual business via their website, this expense would seem clearly to be an item that should not be capitalised.