dangerous unqualifieds

dangerous unqualifieds

Didn't find your answer?

I have just finished overturning the grossly incomptetent tax compliance of an unqualified idiot,who did not even understand basis periods for tax purposes or losses..The taxpayer was left with a£13000 bill on cessation of sole tradership,which I have turned into a £3000 refund.I am no great shakes ,but this has turned round a horrendous situation for the taxpayer,who could not pay the bill he should never have had.This incompetent woman had also claimed £19000 loss brought forward from a run of profitable years a couple of years earlier!!

There appears no way to gain restitution or stop this idiot from practising,unless someone can suggest a waterproff means.
Edward Bellamy

Replies (118)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
06th Mar 2007 07:46

Werdna
[]Star![]
Rats!
.... I will have to come up with a pen name. Possibilities are as follows:

The farmer .... what I would prefer to be doing.
[]What he doing benefit mankind[]

Any votes?

[]DONE for benefit all the mankind[]

4 STAR, is it rats!?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
23rd Feb 2007 15:44

hi Paul
no offense but you should stick to football!

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
22nd Feb 2007 11:05

Can't follow that
I'm lost for words, probably a good thing.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MarionMorrison
01st Mar 2007 11:13

That explains it
I think your final paragraph explains an awful lot, EC. Your high-end specialisation means that you aren't quite in touch with how life is at the oily rag end of the industry - your main dealership approach does seem to be based on the concept that unqualified = worse in all sectors because that's the way it applies in your sector.

Will Proper Accountants be putting something in their letters of engagement that say that the prices charged for the services provided will include a premium for the letters that follow someone's name regardless of whether these are necessary to the task or not?

Can I let you into a secret? I don't use letters of engagement. Never have and never will. For our clients they are utterly redundant. They don't read them, the restrictions which they place on the relationship would never be applied. I cannot think of an instance in nearly 30 years where we or our clients would have been advantaged by a letter of engagement. Of course that makes a little bit more sense of my nom de plume - Cowboy and proud of it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
06th Mar 2007 07:50

EIiterates
So long you all are all eliterates accountants. Spell Star back to become Rats, you think all don't know?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
01st Mar 2007 09:00

All...
...accountants should be in favour of competition but it is a commonplace that markets must be regulated if they are to provide benefits to both consumers and providers.

Of course regulation should be as light as possible but the rules must at least provide for the market to be fair, honest and transparent. This is not the case at present in the UK accountancy market.

The problem for both providers and consumers is that anyone can call themselves an accountant and offer accountancy services to the general public. Because we live in an age of regulation, the public naturally assume that accountancy is, like other professions, regulated by law and that everyone who operates publicly as an accountant is qualified as such, has passed the exams and is a member of a recognised professional body that imposes disciplinary procedures, continuing education and PII etc.

The fact that unqualifieds can, under present law, practice as accountants even though none of these assumptions is met means that the market is not fair, honest or transparent. The unqualifieds are effectively passing themselves off as and getting their work on the back of the reputation of qualified professionals.

It would be different if they advertised themselves as unqualified and, in particular, if the opening paragraph of their engagement letters to their clients read: "You should be aware that I am not qualified as an accountant by examination and that I am not a member of a recognised professional body that imposes disciplinary procedures, continuing education and PII." But they don't, do they? The effect is dishonest as far as the client is concerned and unfair as far as qualifieds are concerned.

Regulation operates quite effectively in other professions and there is no reason why it could not be be effective in the accountancy profession despite the view of some contributors to this thread that accountancy is somehow different in kind to other professions when really it is just a matter of degree. Moreover, regulation has actually been implemented in other countries so there is no reason why it could not operate here. Certainly our professional institutes have a role to play in bringing about change but they have no ability or function to regulate a public market. Only government can do that by enacting legislation.


PS: I have no personal interest in this. Ours is a niche practice at the high end of the market and unqualifieds would not get anywhere near our clients not just because the clients themselves would not consider them but also because the clients' other advisers (solicitors, bankers, stockbrokers etc) would not work with anyone who was not at least ICAEW qualified.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
28th Feb 2007 23:04

Ebeneezer
My comments last night were not really an attack on you personally although I admit they were designed to stir things…..I know nothing about you, and for me there lies the problem. Reading your contributions up to that point you appeared to just ignore the comments of others. You asked a question about why we shouldn’t be treated as other professions and many of us offered reasoned answers however you just kept asking, as if our contributions had no validity.

Similarly, although proposing the regulation of our services you ignored the logical response(s) “How?” This is neither argument nor debate.

Just as you complain at the tone used by others you come across as arrogant and your use of the word “class” below said more than you perhaps intended?

Your more recent comments have however shown more background to your argumants and I'm going to 2nd Dean’s response.

Oh yes Roger unless that last 4 letter word is Latin I suggest you keep it for yourself, it has no place here.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
02nd Mar 2007 11:19

"Unqualifieds can practice as accountants"!?
So Marion's a self-confessed cowboy, hence his/her nom de plume. I get it! And Paul is presumably a Red Devil.

Ebeneezer, after sharing so many of your opinions with us in this thread it's rather tiresome of you to suddenly announce that you work at the higher end of the market and have little interest in the hinterland self-employed / FRSSE area where unqualified bookkeepers, accounting technicians, and Chartered Accountants compete. That's the whole area under discussion - and you're not in it! You're having a laugh - and that's why you've named yourself after a comic character (for those unable to remember trannies, Ebeneezer Cuckpowder was a character in a 'sixties light-comedy programme on the wireless). I get it!

Ebeneezer, if indeed you are what you say, qualified and upmarket, then you're the first FCA / FCCA I've come across who hasn't by now sorted his verbs from his nouns as regards practise and practice - hence your blooper in my title line above, lifted from your last post. If you are what you say, and given that otherwise you are highly literate, you would, in practice, be well practised in using these - it would be second nature to you. I think you're having a laugh.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By deanshepherd
28th Feb 2007 14:11

I think EC is clutching at straws..

It seems to me that you are hoping that the government will save you from the pressure of increasing competition you face in practice.

As a similarly qualified professional I am, of course, concerned with increased competition. However, I see that as an opportunity to show that using my services ensures greater quality for which there is a premium.

If you are unable to differentiate your services from those of other accountants then I do not believe it is for the legislature to bail you out.

The predicament faced by Edward's client in his original post is one faced by numerous clients of suitably qualified professionals. Poor work is not restricted to the unregulated sector and regulation will not, I think, resolve the initial problem highlighted, however frustrating that problem may be.

I also think that too many assumptions are being made about these supposed scurrilous unqualifieds lurking in the mist. Many will be members of the ICPA holding adequate PII cover and attending sufficient CPE courses.

I agree with all that incompetency needs to be removed from our profession, I just cannot fathom how protecting the term 'accountant' will achieve this.

Educating the public about the advantages of using an ACA/ACCA/AAT/CIOT practitioner may be the solution. But this is the responsibility of those professional bodies and not for the government to do.

If you believe your professional body is failing you in that respect then maybe you should leave and join the ranks of the ICPA!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
28th Feb 2007 15:32

Shake-Out Time
I'm sure those of us already in would like to restrict entry to public practice. The fact is that many professions / vocations go through a process of regulation which soon become barriers to entry: most recently financial advisers and those in the food industry.

But the gravy-train days of closed-shop auditing work cannot return in any shape or form: there are large numbers of (well-qualified) Indians waiting in the wings to undercut us; already let loose on the USA, they work remotely for five-and-a-half-day a week, for what amounts to a day's pay here. Just as China and others have put our white goods manufacturers out of business, so we will be unable to compete. I guess most of us will end up sat at home on our computers all day.

I really don't feel (economically) threatened by the AAT, the bookkeeping bodies, or the unqualified (or should that be the unexamined?) - because I believe the real competition has yet to arrive.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
28th Feb 2007 10:52

In which case EC ...
the "profession" that is left in place had better drop their fees for standard compliance work. The whole reason that the non-chartered sector has grown to represent 70% of the whole market is the stupid fees that high street practices think they can get away with.

I guarantee the public will not form a queue outside of your office to pay increased fees. The non regulated sector will just re-badge as "business services" specialists and everything will carry on as was.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
28th Feb 2007 11:39

can't resist
is anyone prepared to hazard a guess how many posts this will generate?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
28th Feb 2007 11:51

When...

...the public know they have a choice between:

(i) unregulated "business services" carried on by the unqualified, probably without compulsory PII, continuing professional training and a disciplinary regime

and

(ii) regulated professional accountancy,

sufficient numbers of that 70% you refer to will make the sensible choice so that we will be able to keep fees for routine compliance work at a competitive level. We are at least as business-smart as the unqualifieds.

What is quite wrongly happening now is that the public do not even have the choice because they do not know there are the two classes of accountants in public practice. The public assume that, because they are allowed by law to call themselves accountants, all who do so belong to group (ii). In effect, the unqualifieds are passing themselves off as and getting their work on the back of the reputation of qualified professionals.

But regulation is coming, make no mistake about that. And all to the good because it will benefit both the profession and the general public.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
28th Feb 2007 12:53

Fine ..
I now have no problem with your argument although I'm not sure I share your optimism about the fees level. Presumably practices (the offcial type) have a business model that they will be relecutant to move away from. Many clients have stuck with the devil they know and I don't see practices reducing fees overnight to become more competetive. Also, I dont really see clients making a move away from someone if they are happy with the service they already receive following regulation.

HOWEVER, I support you assertion that the public should know what they are buying.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
28th Feb 2007 13:29

Although Ebeneezer and I are in agreement
on the substantial point here, I wonder if he is able to explain the following apparent inconsistency in 2 of his postings on this thread:

1. Why have my opponents in this discussion resorted to unpleasant personal attacks instead of concentrating on the issue

and an earlier post of his:

2. Whenever we get contributions from the Far-East, the likes of roger rabbit and paul scholes come up with the sort of racist sarcasm seen below.

Prat.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
28th Feb 2007 13:44

It is..

...only an apparent inconsistency. Unlike my opponents, I was not attacking you personally but attacking what you said and, in particular, the sarcastic tone in which you said it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By sheppitsgal
28th Feb 2007 16:32

Regulation
Presumably Harold Shipman was Regulated/Qualified, etc. etc.???

(tee hee)

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
27th Feb 2007 19:12

One just for Ebeneezer
Having been asleep for a day it was interesting to return to the flurry. From all those years ago on 22 Feb when I wondered about your motives in hiding behind “EC”, I have struggled to understand how you seem unable to acknowledge even a hint of the realities of 2007 accountancy practice that I and others experience.

There is of course the possibility that your screen’s not too good or maybe that you are out just to mess with people, to stir it up and the use of “EC” might support this view.

However, on the assumption that you are a professional in practice, is it a case that you and your clients still operate in the time when we listened to your character on our wireless? A time when the still “awfully umble” public saw accountants as being on the A list?

Merely a pondering but it would help this B lister to know,

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
28th Feb 2007 10:03

Why...
...have my opponents in this discussion resorted to unpleasant personal attacks instead of concentrating on the issue? Possibly because their attacks are attempts to camouflage what they really know is their actually quite shabby and venal underlying position.

The fact is that, because the term "accountant" is not (as yet) protected by law, it is possible for unqualifieds to freeload on the back of the effort of those of us who work hard to maintain our profession's status and integrity. They are unwilling to sit the exams (although, of course, they would pass). They do not wish to pay professional subscriptions or PII premiums or be subject to disciplinary proceedings or continuing professional training requirements. And yet they still demand the right to call themselves accountants and hold themselves out to the general public as practising professional accountants. All this on the back of other people's efforts.

It isn't right and it is no longer on. The unqualifieds have had a free ride for too long. We live in an age of regulation whether we like it or not., especially for anyone offering services to the public. The general public have a right to know that anyone who holds themselves out to be an accountant in public practice has passed the exams, is a member of an appropriate professional body that requires PII and continuing professional training and that enforces standards through a disciplinary regime.

The regulatory tide is world wide. It is coming to the UK for accountants (as it already has done elsewhere) whether the unqualifieds like it or not. They had better sit the exams and join the professionals or find themselves out of a job.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dylantherabbit
27th Feb 2007 11:13

Caveat emptor
Isn't the real message to be gained from this the old adage that was taught to all accountancy students at some point.

Let the buyer beware, or Caveat Emptor in the Latin.

When purchasing any goods or services, the purchaser/consumer/user of the services makes a decision based on price and their own assessment of the person they are employing.

If they make a bad choice, then it is their responsibility when it goes wrong.

At least if the person employed was a member of a professional body, you could report them to that body and make a complaint....unqualified practitioners can therefore represent a higher general risk than qualifieds.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 15:24

Am I dangerous?
I passed my ACCA exams while working in practice some years ago.

Like a previous poster, I then spent a period in industry and couldn't see any value in my ACCA subs so I lapsed.

I then started my own practice and complete CPD through AAT member in practice scheme and carry full PI cover.

ACCA wrote to me last year and asked whether I would like to reapply for a Prac cert. I just needed to supply references from fellow professionals ... no problem. Oh, and pay back subs of about £800.00.

I thought long and hard but couldn't really see the point. My subs are lower with AAT and my PI cover is too. I don't ever want to do audit again in my life. Mortgage lenders accept my sign off and clients don't give a fig. It struck me that the ACCA just wanted my money.

There are lots of people like me out there and do you know ... I really don't think we are that dangerous!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
27th Feb 2007 15:38

B - List
"Few....matters that solicitors or barristers and even doctors advise on are life or death matters either."

Ebeneezer, that's exactly what those professions are concerned with. These are matters of great importance: a doctor terminates your pregnancy; a solicitor sues him because you are now paraplegic; barristers prosecute / defend the errant doctor in court. Life and death - issues of great importance - these professions belong on the A-list, along with air traffic controllers and pharmacists.

Accountancy simply isn't life and death - important yes, but no more so than teachers or town-planners. Very B-list - didn't they tell you that at Careers Guidance?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 12:35

I am unconvinced
of the benefits of forbidding (by regulation) unqualified medical practicioners from practising. I can see the benefits of regulating the qualified medical sector, and I can see the benefits of creating an offence to pass yourself off as a qualified medical practicioner if you are not so qualified, but beyond that I am unconvinced of the benefits of further regulation.

Under that environment, it might be commercially unviable for an unqualified medical practicioner to survive in practice, but that is a separate matter. And indeed if they are driven out of business by market forces it is even less of an incentive to drive them out of business by regulation.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 12:37

But...
...you have still failed to differentiate accountancy. All professions have some bread and butter work where the risk to the public is low. But that does not alter the fact that much accountancy/tax advice often has serious financial consequences for the client in exactly the same way that advice from other professionals has serious consequences of other sorts for them.

So, again, the question is why should accountancy be exempt from the same sort of regulation that applies to other professions?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 12:44

Or, to put it another way, Ebeneezer
why should the other professions be subject to regulation that are absent in accountancy? To be clear, the particular regulation in point is the forbidding of practising when unqualified, despite full information of that status being available to the customer. (There is no dispute, as far as I am aware, that the qualified sector should be regulated.)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 12:53

Do you mean ...

..that all the soldiers except accountancy are marching the the wrong way?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
27th Feb 2007 12:55

The Only Answer
Hi Ebeneezer: your "Only Question" asks why accountants shouldn't be treated like any other regulated profession, but your list is cherry-picked. Here are some other regulated professions that we aren't treated any differently to:

Builders (Chartered Institute of Building, inter alia)
Marketing (Chartered Institute of Marketing)
Human Resources (Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development)
Engineers (Numerous)
Architects (Architects Registration Council)
Company Secretaries (Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators)

In all of these professions Joe Public (and the small businessman) pays his money and takes his choice. If the finish on Joe's poorly designed extension is below-par, his ailing business poorly staffed, and his annual return late that's because his DIY / horses-for-courses approach hasn't paid off. He might equally well save pots of cash and have just as good a job done. If things go awry it may cost Joe, but these are rarely life and death matters - just like accountancy. Nobody should let Homer Simpson anyone near a nuclear plant; but what real harm is there in allowing him to help Flanders with his VAT return?

I'm sure every marketing man and every website designer in the land would vote for a closed-shop; as would every one of the regulated professions on my list above. Like it or not, It's the list we belong on - I'm afraid neither the public, small businesses, nor the government perceive accountancy as vital enough for your 'A'-list.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 13:06

I mean, Ebeneezer
that there is in my opinion massive over-regulation in all walks of life. This arises for two main reasons:
1) Professions prefer a closed shop, and so lobby for regulation to restrict the market, and
2) Governments exist to regulate. Regulation is their legacy, and they are happy to regulate given half an excuse. France has virtually no equivalent to our HSE, and there is a growing population who think they have the right approach.

If you wish to say that all of the other professions "marching in step" have got it right simply because of their majority behaviour then it should not be beyond the advocates of that behaviour to put their finger on why it is superior. Simply to justify it on the grounds of their majority is a lazy approach, to my mind.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 13:08

Few...

....matters that solicitors or barristers and even doctors advise on are life or death matters either.

The reason we are not yet on the A list is poor lobbying by our professional bodies. But if they can do it in Ireland and Malaya, we can do it here (and not before time either).

If the unqualified really are as good as they say they are, why don't they just take the exams like the rest of us. If experience has taught them so much, passing ought to to be a doddle.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 13:12

Ebeneezer...
"If the unqualified really are as good as they say they are, why don't they just take the exams like the rest of us. If experience has taught them so much, passing ought to to be a doddle."

It's not just about passing an exam though.
There are far more factors to consider, not least of which is if someone is competent, and don't feel they need to support of a professional body, they might resent having to pay x-hundred a year on PII and Membership fees.

Equally, someone might have passed all the exams, but not taken the letters, for the above reasons.
Just a thought

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 13:21

"The reason we are not yet on the A list is poor lobbying by our
I think that sums up my argument succinctly.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 13:32

I do ...
See my post 10 below this one

Thanks (0)
By thomas.peterson
27th Feb 2007 15:10

Yes Keith
The second you let your subs lapse you became a threat to all life on the planet, just as the second the ACCA approve my diary I will become an expert in all areas of accountancy.

Too much Black and White in this topic...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 13:25

Yes,,,

...but why don't you apply the same argument to solicitors, barristers, pharmacists, dentists etc?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By deanshepherd
27th Feb 2007 11:20

Ok, I'll bite..

Ebeneezer..

Did you not read Paul Scholes comments?

The risk to the general public is not comparable to the professions you list. Only certain aspects of the accountants job has such a risk to the general public which is why they, and they alone, are currently regulated (auditing, financial services, charity accounts).

The financial risk of having a tax return completed incorrectly by an incompetent adviser is comparable to the risk of having a plumber cause financial loss by not fixing a leaky tap.

Are you really suggesting that the government should wade in and regulate the plumbing industry costing millions from the public purse as well as increasing the cost for consumers across the board?

Of course not.

My opinion is that protecting the term 'accountant' will do little to resolve the problem posed by the original poster that some people, unfortunately, receive bad advice.

We all know that incompetency exists amongst members of professional accounting bodies just as it does amongst non-qualified accountants.

I believe it is up to accountants and their membership organisations to self-regulate and inform the general public of the virtues of using their members services as oppose to a potentially cheaper option of a non-qualified accountant.

I think, on the whole, the general public (myself very much included) have the ability to make their own decision as to whether they choose a qualified provider or not and do so at their own risk.

Returning to the plumbing example, I recently had my bathroom refitted. I engaged the services of a painter and decorator that I know and trust to do all the work. He is not a trained plumber but he does possess sufficient knowledge to install a new bath. I took that risk and did so with full knowledge of the consequences. I would not take such a risk with gas but others might, hence the CORGI regulations.

An individual should have the option to make his own risk decision on engaging the services of an unqualified accountant to complete his tax return but not for services of which there is risk to the general public such as the reporting of listed company accounts.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
27th Feb 2007 10:18

Still...
...no one has come up with a remotely plausible reason why the accountancy profession should be treated differently from any other regulated profession:

solicitors
barristers
architects
surveyors
pharmacists
dentists.


That is the ONLY question here

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
26th Feb 2007 19:50

Call me old fashioned . . .

But I hold to quaint ideas about integrity, objectivity and independence. I (immodestly) claim to employ these virtues in my professional life.

If I did not I might soon find myself sharing a cell with some of my clients (if there were any room left in prisons these days).

Then, I suppose others on here may refer to my clients as professional criminals.

David
www.accountingevidence.com

P.S. RR thanks for reminding me about Scottish law. I think I knew that but had forgotton! Do you know the latin for "O Table A"?

One thing I find rather interesting is how Scottish lawyers interpret legislation in PoCA 2002 in an utterly different way from that in England & Wales. Which proves what a sad and blinkered life I lead!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
26th Feb 2007 16:43

To David Winch
The reason there is so much Latin in Scots Law is that Scots Law is both in concepts and practice fundamentally based on Roman Law, unlike that Johnny come lately that is English common law.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
26th Feb 2007 14:54

Unchartered Territory?
My dictionary goes beyond both of yours to further define a profession as: "d) loosely, any occupation"; and goes on to mention "the oldest profession" (think Spartacus's bird, before she ceased to become a professional).

On that basis I don't see any specialist status attached to the word "professional": very ten-a-penny!

Same problem with the word qualified: these days everyone's qualified, from the guy who fixes my computer (Microsoft qualified) to the technician who swung from my exhaust until it snapped (Kwik-Fit qualified). Even 18 year old jam-maker Fraser Doherty, who's just landed himself a 120,000 jar contract with Waitrose (sorry to shatter your beliefs, Marion) must first become qualified in food hygiene. As for accountancy, there are a plethora of qualifications.

On which basis I see no particular elevation arising from the word "qualified": after all, a qualified payroll specialist or qualified tax technician might easily be better versed than a qualified accountant in their particular specialties. Those who are AAT qualified will find their Association listed among the Professional Bodies in the DRAFT MLR 2007; whilst those who are CIMA qualified will not.

I suspect the issue may not be whether or not one is labelled, along with pest-controllers and fallen women, "professional"; or labelled, along with computer geeks and Mr Kipling's staff, "qualified". The signals I'm picking up from this thread are those of a chartered / non-chartered divide.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
26th Feb 2007 15:13

Hi Andrew
my dictionary may be found at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/profession - where is yours?

If you apply a modicum of common sense you can see that a professional makes money out of his/her knowledge, and qualification in this context is property that allows entry to the profession; and it is common for a profession to be regulated such that only members of the profession are allowed to provide regulated services. In general that is a good thing, and certainly is something that the original post alluded to!

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
26th Feb 2007 10:45

Profession v industry

Marion

Isn't the essence of a profession that its members put the interests of their clients ahead of their own interest?

To put it another way the primary purpose of a professional is not to maximise his own income, but rather to discharge his duty to others.

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MarionMorrison
26th Feb 2007 12:04

Profession, Vocation or Trade?
If the essence of a profesion is clients first, then I don't think accountancy can possibly count as a profession and in truth, most of those things that are labelled professions simply aren't.

Accountancy as a job seems to be driven in the main by regulation and precaution and by billing with the greatest attention given to not breaching rules rather than with helping clients.

I've scratched my head over professions that don't seem hell-bent on maximising income and teaching and the priesthood are the only one that sprang to mind. The world isn't littered with underpaid accounants, solicitors, barristers, doctors and dentists. On this basis, the jam-maker is the nearest to a profession.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
26th Feb 2007 13:18

Define dictionary
The use of titles to evidence these arguments doesn't seem to be helping us much.

I follow Marion’s logic in this sub-debate, my namesake is specially trained in his paid occupation and, according to my dictionary, is correctly titled a “Professional Footballer”. Marion highlights a couple of examples of occupations that appear to retain a vocational (yet more Latin) essence however in 2007 I don’t believe the P word offers us any special protection or rights.

Similarly, whilst I get the drift of David’s comments, it is dangerous (or naive) to operate a regulated business under the banner “the clients’ interests come first”. I take care to do the best for my clients but there has to be a balance and unless we also look after number 1 and know at which point to disengage from certain clients we are more like Spartacus, before he became a professional.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
26th Feb 2007 16:35

Alastair
Butting in....at last someone has returned to the original posting, which referred to a self employed tax compliance matter. Are you suggesting that assisting someone with their self employed accounts and tax should be a regulated service?

PS you still haven’t told me why I should stick to football

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MarionMorrison
26th Feb 2007 14:11

Hi Alastair
Yours seems a much more appropriate definition of profession than David's and I'm quite happy with that. No angst - I just didn't want people accountants to be seen as professionals purely because they were virtuous and unmotivated by money.

Your definition also has a pleasing lack of emphasis on the passing of antique and rarely relevant examinations.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
26th Feb 2007 13:06

Hi Marion. What is a profession?
my dictionary tells me that a profession is "a : a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b : a principal calling, vocation, or employment c : the whole body of persons engaged in a calling."

seems straightforward enough to me, unlike the angst in your post!

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
26th Feb 2007 18:25

Alastair - how?
As I mentioned last week (22nd) the comparison of tax compliance advice with medical services is daft. The government is compelled to regulate health professionals because of the obvious risk to the public’s life & limbs. The government also perceives risk to the public in our specialist fields (audit etc) but surely the risk from poor service in the subject matter is in a minor league, perhaps below the potential danger from the poor work of a car mechanic.

As has been asked already, how would you regulate this sort of low level service when the work itself can be (and is) done by members of the public? To put it another way when Jo opens his/her tax return guide on the self employed pages will the first note read: “You can complete this section yourself or use the services of a qualified accountant, ie one with the following letters after their name xxxx” ?

Times have moved on and this sort of service is no longer specialised enough to bring it under government regulation.

You may think I'm good at footie but you should see my P11D's

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
26th Feb 2007 20:36

David you're old fashioned
But then so am I, if old fashioned still works use it.

We seem to go around in circles here, on 1.5 debates.

Using your criteria, the main debate is whether an unqualified person (ie without letters after his/her name) is able to employ integrity, objectivity and independence. For me there is no debate I can name several who do this blindfold and, from what I can tell, a few others have contributed here.

Some contributors seem to feel however that, regardless of their abilities, these NQs, (or even Qs but not one of our Qs), should be banned from helping Jo with his/her self employed tax compliance, and that the way to achieve this is through regulation. What nobody seems able to say however is how this regulation would work without perhaps a nanny or police state?

All smells mighty unsavoury to me…..but then maybe the smell is reminiscent of 65M years ago?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
24th Feb 2007 13:26

Self-assessment
The clue is in the name. They (tax payers) are supposed to be able do it themselves. They have HMRC software for free, guidance manuals .. its getting easier. Thats why Bob & Sylvie are getting in on the act and doing it from the kitchen table. Don't worry about protecting "accountancy", we'll all be out of a job in 10 years! I'm 40, aim to get out by then anyway ... bring it on I say.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
23rd Feb 2007 12:53

But
Public accountancy is not an industry. It is a profession.

None of the contributors to this tread has offered even a remotely plausible reason why this profession and its users (the public) should not enjoy the same level of safeguards and protections as:

solicitors
barristers
architects
surveyors
pharmacists
dentists

and many other professions (as opposed to trades or industries).

Thanks (0)

Pages