I thought I would have a quick look at PWC's global accounts this morning. After all, it has said today that it needs to do more to " explain the positive role we play in the tax system". I thought having a look at its own accounts would be the right place to start.
So, I went to its web site. But as there are no links to accounts I followed the following link at the bottom of each page:
You're not missing that it's the small print: that's exactly where it's hidden. But I followed the link and found that:
PwC is the brand under which the member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL) operate and provide professional services.
So where is this mighty company? Conveniently, the answer is here in the UK, where it has company number 3590073. And these are its accounts:
Unaudited looks odd. So does the total financial disclosure, which is as follows:
And
So there we have it. The organisation that appears to be behind PWC's web site does not trade, and has no assets or liabilities, despite the fact that it has an impressive list of 21 directors from around the world to achieve this goal.
As an exercise in transparency it's a staggering example of opacity.
It's almost as if PWC is really Macavity, the mystery cat for when they reach the scene of crime–Macavity's not there!
You have a little more explaining to do as yet PWC. Why not start with your global accounts that reflect the single entity you really are, prepared on a country-by-country reporting basis?
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:
PwC is not a single entity, though – it’s a collection of local firms, each owned by local partners. Their branding seems designed to give the opposite impression, but if you google “how is PwC structured” you’ll see a fairly clear explanation. So would be misleading to present accounts on a global basis.
It is the structure that is misleading
Not my argument
If you want accounts, why not look up Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP?
As with most accountants, PwC trades as a partnership. I believe you traded as a partnership when you were in business as an accountant all those years ago. Surely you haven’t forgotten this fact?
It took me a couple of moments to find their latest accounts at Companies House. All 70+ pages of it.
Their Companies House reference is OC303525.
The only mystery is why you are wasting your and your readers’ time producing silly blogs like this trying to deceive your readers into thinking PwC aren’t publishing financial data when it’s all there for anyone to see if they can be bothered to look.
Because PWC LLP is not the company on the web site
And it is not global
They are not publishing data on what they do globally, but they exist globally. That is a fact. That is what I was pointing out
The Big 4 accountancy firms as structured as a network of legally entirely separate firms – they have to do so due to legal and regulatory requirements worldwide. Each firm has an entirely discrete ownership base (i.e. the Partners in that jurisdiction) so there is no motivation to move profits from (say) the UK to Luxembourg – if they did that then the UK Partners wouldn’t get the profits!
Each local firm does prepare accounts on a country-by-country basis, simply because each firm operates in one jurisdiction only.
PwC International Limited is not a parent entity of the group – instead, all of the PwC firms are a member of that entity, which really only exists as a legal entity to bring the otherwise separate entities together. That’s why no financial result consolidate into it, and why it makes no profit. It’s the same structure used by, say, the Premier League – there is a company which represents the 20 clubs in which each club is a member, but each club is a separate entity (legally, economically and practically). The Premier League entity is useful because it allows the clubs to market themselves “as one”, but that’s not quite the same thing as being a single business.
Asking why PwC does not publish global accounts is roughly the same as asking there are no consolidated results for all Premier League clubs – there’s no need for either because they have entirely separate owners, and hence (a) there’s no requirement under any law or accounting standards to do so, and (b) their existence would provide no tangible benefit to anybody.
I would be as interested as you to see the headline figures, but they wouldn’t show anything of interest for tax (not least because most accountancy firms are structured as partnerships, so don’t pay any income tax that would show up on an income statement).
There’s nothing special about PwC in this respect – you’ll find the same disclaimer on the website of the other Big 4 firms, plus Grant Thornton, BDO etc.
As usual, a defender of the big accountancy firms is wrong.
There is no requirement that PWC operator one legal entity per jurisdiction: several of the big firms operate multi jurisdictional entities already and there is nothing to prevent them doing so.
As to your analogy, I presume you are are aware how stupid it is: Premier league football clubs are in competition with each other whilst it is glaringly obvious that PWC operates in co-operation worldwide and has even set up a system of common control: that is sufficient to justify the production of global accounts, in my opinion. No doubt they could find a friendly opinion to suggest otherwise
“Premier league football clubs are in competition with each other whilst it is glaringly obvious that PWC operates in co-operation worldwide and has even set up a system of common control: that is sufficient to justify the production of global accounts, in my opinion. No doubt they could find a friendly opinion to suggest otherwise”
Clearly there are differences, but they are the same on the material point. Your response above shows this – the Premier league has set up a system of common control, and operates in co-operation worldwide (the majority of their income comes from TV rights negotiated at the league level), the two factors you believe are sufficient to justify the production of consolidated accounts.
And if PwC DID act as a multinational, they absolutely should produce a CBCR report – but they don’t, and they clearly disclose that they don’t.
Except they are a multinational corporation
And there is common control – as I have shown
So there should be a set of accounts
Each country is a separate partnership. You are effectively asking for independent ford dealerships to be consolidated into ford US accounts because they use the same name
I enjoy your blog, but this line of argument is, in my opinion given your previous employment at Kpmg deliberately misleading rather than an innocent mistake. Shame on you
Clearly you do not know that control can be defined in a number of ways
And getting round them is a part of avoidance activity
Sorry are you saying PwC are avoiding tax now? Have you seen the uk llp’s tax bill!?!?
I am saying they are not disclosing their full affairs
Read what I say
What are they not disclosing. I’m very confused. The uk llp accounts disclose their uk results. Isn’t this your country by country reporting in action? As you know the partners all pay income tax on their profit share at 45%
What precisely do you want them to disclose?
The accounts for PWC as the single entity they represent it to be in substance but not form
You mean global consolidated accounts? Isn’t this the opposite of CBC reporting?
CBC reporting is designed as part of such accounts