Rebecca Pennyworth has been considering the issue of the relationship between accountants and the Revenue over at Accountingweb (with the usual apology to those who cannot get access). I already dealt with some aspects of this here yesterday - but there's an important point to add, which builds on the idea of practice assurance.
Of course there are lots of niggles about the way the Revenue works at the moment which drive all reasonable tax practitioners mad. As she says:
Although we hear about lack of consultation on the big issues — such as trusts and the filing deadline — it is the day to day little things that cause the most frustration. Dealing with badly trained staff at call centres; promised returned calls which never happen; never being able to speak to the same person twice. How about nominated agent contacts? The same person within the HMRC agent team who deals with each of us regarding all problems, and fields problems and directs them to the appropriate office. Again, replacing the local contact now gone.
I agree with her - this is what's required to get things right.
But there are two other things that are required. The first is mutual respect. As Paul Wilby argues in an excellent article in the Guardian today (which I seriously recommend):
Everyone employed by central or local government or its agencies - from doctors to roadsweepers - felt denigrated and undervalued
and:
As any teacher knows, if you tell people often enough that they're no good, they will eventually be no good. Tell the world that the public sector is undynamic and needs injections of private-sector efficiency, and the best and brightest will keep out of it.
Accountants are very, very good at saying the Revenue are no good. And on occasion, that's true. But let me be candid - they think the same, in reverse, and because accountants will not subject themselves to any real form of quality control check, even in this age of practice assurance, who can blame them? At least the Revenue are subject to public scrutiny - accountants are not.
So, the second thing that is required is a test of competence before someone is allowed to be a tax agent. This, I should stress, should not be related to professional qualifications. There are appalling, but well qualified accountants. And there are excellent unqualified accountants. The test should be of these things:
- initial competence;
- continuing competence as evidenced by training and/or testing and ongoing practice assurance that tests the quality and ethical standing of work done, with results published;
- willingness to subject oneself to a complaints procedure - including complaints from the Revenue;
- carrying professional indemnity insurance.
This creates a level playing field. Why would any serious practitioner object?
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:
Interesting post Richard.
Dealing with the new HMRC is certainly a painful experience these days, much of it is obviously down to a lack of training, and dare I say it staff shortages, and this something that is evident when you speak with the staff at HMRC on the other end of the phone, a few minutes to build a rapport over the phone and they are soon quick to tell you their woes!
Not that I am defending them, because I am not, I find it very frustrating and extremely annoying, but alas it’s not their fault their employer is not investing in training and the tax system is in such a mess.
In other countries, like Australia, for example, not just anyone can be a tax agent, you are required to be registered, and I whole heartily agree with this, but more in the context of what you suggest, this should not be based on an accounting/taxation professional qualification alone.
The question is how would you go about it, let’s not forget the average accountant/tax adviser has a lot of regulation on his plate, and those already part of a professional body have more again.
Just crossed over from Accountancy Age article and I have to say that I am sick of this arguement that there are good non-qualifieds. You say:
The test should be of these things:
A; initial competence;
B; continuing competence as evidenced by training and/or testing and ongoing practice assurance that tests the quality and ethical standing of work done, with results published;
C; willingness to subject oneself to a complaints procedure – including complaints from the Revenue;
D; carrying professional indemnity insurance.
This creates a level playing field. Why would any serious practitioner object?
Yes indeed. Is it not the case that the 4 points you listed as being important, are primarily, exactly what distinguishes a person who has actually qualified to call themselves an Accountant and someone who just calls themselves an Accountant (and sets out to mislead).
Would you get in the car with me if you knew that I had either never sat or never passed my driving test (and likely was not therefore insured into the bargain)?
Surely someone who has never studied in a subject doesn’t know what they do not know and the only way to establish if they are competent is to test them i.e. sit the bloody exams and show us.
One question; Why haven’t they qualified if they are any good. No seriously, think about that before we answer.
To jason (politely), we already know how to go about it.
I have recent experience, in two different instances, of guys lying to clients about their professional qualifications. Why?
Gb
You make the analogy of a driving instructor, how can you really compare us, everyone tries this argument, it’s boring and weak. In your example you elude to the fact this unqualified driving instructor may kill you, same with the doctor comparison others use, I have never seen anyone die from their accountant, except from boredom (maybe).
If you are talking about who is competent to do what then surely ATT members are best to deal with all tax compliance issues as that is what they are specifically trained for, and CIOT members should be the only ones doing tax planning as they have the specialist knowledge/exam passes, then we have STEP members will tell you that when it comes to trusts etc lawyers/accountants/CIOT members really should not attempt it as they are better qualified.
I have also in the last month had problems with out going advisors, three clients I have picked up; one from a non qualified, all I can say he should really be flogged in public, another was a member of a chartered institute, he should also be flogged but not for the same (serious) reasons as the last one, and the last is from a different chartered institute and once I get him to get off his backside and reply to my 7 week old letter I will let you know what my view is.
So, as can be seen, its not qualifications that are the only issue, is professional pride in what one does!
An impassioned posting Gordon.
As for the we Gordon, (politely also) I am a qualified accountant as it happens, who also has to carry expensive PI cover, carry out endless hours of CPD, have my files available for inspection etc, but, unlike you I am not under the misapprehension that all those who did not pass the exams are not fit for the job, just like I am not under the illusion those who passed are fit for the job.
You make the analogy of a driving instructor, how can you really compare us, everyone tries this argument, it’s boring and weak. In your example you elude to the fact this unqualified driving instructor may kill you, same with the doctor comparison others use, I have never seen anyone die from their accountant, except from boredom (maybe).
If you are talking about who is competent to do what then surely ATT members are best to deal with all tax compliance issues as that is what they are specifically trained for, and CIOT members should be the only ones doing tax planning as they have the specialist knowledge/exam passes, then we have STEP members will tell you that when it comes to trusts etc lawyers/accountants/CIOT members really should not attempt it as they are better qualified.
I have also in the last month had problems with out going advisors, three clients I have picked up; one from a non qualified, all I can say he should really be flogged in public, another was a member of a chartered institute, he should also be flogged but not for the same (serious) reasons as the last one, and the last is from a different chartered institute and once I get him to get off his backside and reply to my 7 week old letter I will let you know what my view is.
So, as can be seen, its not qualifications that are the only issue, is professional pride in what one does!
Since Jason ha replied to Gordon so well, I have little to add, and offer my thanks to him.
I can say though that his expereince matches my own. The fact that someone passed an exam at 25 does not prove they are still competent at 27, let alone 50. It’s what the person does that matters. That and acting within what they know to be the limits of their capacity and competence. Both are critical. Ane being qualified does nothing to enhance ability in these areas, unfortunately.
[…] In my view it’s time for a radical rethink. If the profession can’t feed the trainee funnel then ask why? It seems to me we’re not teaching the right things. And even when we attempt to do it, there is no guarantee of competence. That’s not just pitiful, it’s shameful and deeply unethical. […]