Following my blog under the above title yesterday Mark Lee posted a comment which I thought worth turning into a blog in it own right:
Since you ask Richard. I think it's simply implicit at the moment.
I sit on a working party on behalf of the ICAEW. We are engaged on updating the Guide to professional conduct for those working in tax.
The working party also comprises representatives of CIOT, ICAS, ACCA, STEP, CIMA, ATT, IIT. Most of these bodies also collaborated in the creation of the current version of the Guide and I sat on the working party last time too.
The Guide is a de facto part of the ICAEW members' handbook and the update will reflect the creation of the merged HMRC, changes in the law and changes in practice. This is also the first time the Guide has had a thorough overhaul.
I've just had a quick scan of the current version and of the latest draft of the update. I will suggest to the working party that the point in question be made more explicit than seems currently to be the case.
Three things:
1) Many thanks Mark
2) This shows the importance of blogging
3) I think this will pose real problems for many UK practitioners offshore
And, maybe a fourth:
4) If I could make a request the amendment would require that the members of those Institutes be required to make specific enquiry on this point and document their answers, with reasons and evidence given.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
As someone who has routinely being doing 4. for the past few years (albeit with varied degreees of success), I am surprised to read that the practice is not more commonly adopted. This is not just a due diligence issue but can, and often does, have a bearing on the quality of the advice which might be sought, e.g., when advising on tie breaker clauses in treaties.
Personally, whilst people can run with the ethics line, I feel there is a more pragmatic approach which could be taken but which would suit the majority. If the professional bodies made it an explicit requirement that a professional opinion was to be provided to the advisers at either end of any cross border situation, there would not only be an increased emphasis on compliance but we could all be paid for the privilege.
The difficulty, as is almost invariably the case, is that a more bullish and focused view by the professional bodies would suit the majority of their members, by number, but not the Big Four.
Same as with the Law Society and so many of these professional bodies; it’s a minority of large corporate firms that tend to call the shots.
Andrew
Spot on
Richard