My long standing blogging friend, Dennis Howlett has drawn my attention to a blog by Michael Izza, President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (of which I am a member) on the subject of aggressive tax avoidance. Izza wrote nearly a week ago: matters have been somewhat hectic for me over that period. It's fair to say the ICAEW also sent me a note about it too.
Like Dennis, I regret I take little comfort from Izza's words. Having noted the schemes referred to by The Times and as used by Jimmy Carr and others he then says:
I believe that there is no place for our profession in the creation or maintenance of these sorts of tax schemes.
As ICAEW Chartered Accountants, our code of ethics, which is the foundation for how we behave, is clear that we must do nothing to bring our profession into disrepute. Any members involved in aggressive tax planning through the sorts of schemes highlighted by The Times are doing exactly that, and are risking the reputation of the vast majority of our members who provide valuable and honest support to businesses and individuals and who want nothing to do with such schemes.
Anyone behind the type of tax schemes outlined in The Times must be aware that what they are dealing with is beyond the bounds of what is reasonable and responsible tax planning — all the more so if the schemes cannot be set out fully in writing or rely on information being conveyed orally.
It is a curious fact that, Mark Lee apart, those ICAEW members commenting below the article do not seem to agree: indeed their comments about Izza are blunt, and consider it was his job to challenge The Times and not criticise tax abuse.
Well, Izza got it right to offer criticism, but his tone and the content of his blog is so typical of the current corporate style apology. Issued after the event, only referring to what has been made public and seeking to suggest that those who have perpetrated the act are the rare rotten apples the tone matches that of all current cliches for CEO confessions. As such it may have irritated those wedded to tax abuse but its a miserable failure for the ICAEW.
Firstly, Izza implies that the ethical code of the ICAEW is a matter for each member to determine - he asks them to look in the mirror. That's absurd. A tax cheat never sees a tax cheat in the mirror - they'll deny it forever. As a result his suggested sanction - that those involved desist - is wholly inadequate.
Second, he offers no support for measures to stamp out such abuse - and the ICAEW is already on record, as are a great many of its members, as having concern about the scope of the extraordinarily timid general anti-avoidance rule being promoted by the government. That's not walking the talk.
Third, Izza's comments smack of seeking to close this door after the horse has bolted, but Izza needs if he is to suggest leadership on this issue to anticipate where the next problem might arise. So, for example, he should be condemning all those who seek to get round the law - for that is what tax avoidance is. And he should be condemning the use of tax havens to undermine the settlement of obligations due within the spirit of the law in the UK, and all those ICAEW members who service those tax haven operations. And he should not just be condemning those who refuse to commit their ax schemes to writing to avoid the sanction of law but also all those who use offshore trusts, nominee companies and other tax haven structures to also obscure the truth of their transactions, and he should be demanding that not just members of the ICAEW but governments too take action to stop that abuse.
And he should think more widely about those who bring the profession into disrepute. He might begin with why PWC forgot to highlight the risk to Barclays of the LIBOR investigation at that bank that has now cost the jobs of three executives and shattered the share price - but which got the most cursory of attention hidden in a note deep in the accounts. Maybe he should wonder whether that - and the failure suggested by the House of Lords of three of the Big 4 in their bank audits in 2008 also brought the ICAEW into disrepute.
To put it more broadly, Izza can't play the rotten apple card. It's now widely recognised that there's a failure of accountability and transparency in society and that ethical failures, financial abuse and even crime are following in its wake. And it's fair to say that the failure of the accountancy profession to put its house in order over many years - as so expertly catalogued by Prem Sikka is the clearest possible evidence of that.
So mirrors aren't good enough, I'm afraid. More is blowing away a little of the smoke. It's time for the ICAEW to say that anything not clearly within the spirit of the law is unacceptable tax practice according to its ethical code. And it's time for it to demand legislation to back that up. And it's also time for it to say tax havens should be beyond limits form its members, whilst now is the time for it to say that there must be independent firms of auditors who audit and do nothing else if the role of private sector auditing is to survive. Nothing less will do.
The ICAEW has a long way to go on ethics as yet if it is to match reasonable public expectations. Learning how to make an appropriate apology might be a good place to start.
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:
If Izza genuinely believes that “As ICAEW Chartered Accountants, our code of ethics, which is the foundation for how we behave, is clear that we must do nothing to bring our profession into disrepute. Any members involved in aggressive tax planning through the sorts of schemes highlighted by The Times are doing exactly that” then surely it is his responsibility to expel from membership (and withdraw the charter) from all accountants involved in this type of “tax planning”.
If, during the course of a company audit, the auditors have grounds to suspect irregularities in the company’s trading methods they are under no obligation to report these suspicions to the shareholders, the FSA or the police.
ICAEW judgement — June 2008
They are under an obligation to report money laundering, though.
And the judgement is technically correct – their obligation is to certify that the accounts are true and fair. Whether they do that satisfactorily is another question.
The ICAEW has fed the PSG the bxllshit that an auditor’s obligation extends no further than: – “to certify that a company’s accounts are true and fair – a judgement which appears to enjoy particular favour for the Isle of Man office of Deloitte.
Let the whole world be told that, providing it is not money laundering, the Big Four will approve any audit on all kinds of companies on the sole proviso that the figures “add-up.” Any legal, moral and ethical considerations relating to a company’s activities are of no interest to the ICAEW and the Big Four who are legally entitled to keep their traps firmly shut. Which of course is what they do so as not to lose the following year’s business.
Little wonder that the UK (and the world) is in such a mess when the very people who have access to the inner sanctums of commerce are free to overlook evidence of deception.
.
Bizarre.
A company (plc) is owned by those people who provide the capital for it to function — the shareholders. Shareholder’s capital may also be used as collateral to allow the company to increase its operating capital by borrowing from banks or other sources.
The company employs directors to manage the company’s affairs; and the directors are empowered to nominate/retain auditors to report to the shareholders the financial position of the company in the mandatory Annual Company Report and Audit.
The mechanism of the AGM (should) allow the company’s shareholders to dismiss the directors.
Because the auditors are not required to report fraud (except money laundering) to the shareholders any misconduct by the directors can be concealed from the shareholders by the auditors, who have no legal obligation to the shareholders and every incentive to retain their fees by remaining the company’s auditors.
By corrupting/manipulating Company Law both auditors and directors can defraud the owners of the company without them being aware of the deception.
All condoned by the ICAEW.