You might also be interested in
Replies (5)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Steve Varley - Accenture ...
Partner - Andersen Consulting / Accenture
1991 – 2005 (14 years)
mmm ...
Just type into Google '.. Accenture computer failure ..' and see what appears (NHS is just one UK area in their considerable catalogue of disasters)
Bearing in mind the ethos of Andersen / Consulting / Accenture and the EY logo at the top of the page 'Building a Better Working World' and the track record of IT delivery by his previous firm, where he was a partner - what price credibility?
Where is the profession's public interest duty?
How can aggressive tax avoidance be said to accord to overriding duty of all professions: ie to act in the public interest?
Sadly the accountancy profession has had to redefine "public interest" to make IFRS - and their focus on short-term stakeholder decisions - consistent with this new definition of public interest. Traditionally, serving the public interest meant acting so as not to benefit any person or group of persons at the expense of the wider community.
Aggressive tax avoidance is against that traditional definition of "public interest". Moreover, advising entities to transfer their profits abroad to be taxed at lower rates is against the national interest.
Although professionals have a duty to act in the best interests of their clients, that is subject to contravening neither the public interest (as traditionally defined) nor the national interest.
‘Our clients make the decisions’
I personally and professional do not agree with aggressive tax avoidance schemes, however what a true and absolute statement ‘Our clients make the decisions’
I am glad one of the big firms have come out and voiced this. We are seeing more articles where accounts 'should be doing more!' or are to blame for their clients decisions on their business. We can advise, we can highlight errors, BUT it is not our decision to make the change. This can be seen with Auto-enrolment, CIS and agency workers, IR35, Aggressive tax avoidance schemes, and a whole lot of other issues that surround our industry.
Well done and well said.
Cop out
I personally and professional do not agree with aggressive tax avoidance schemes, however what a true and absolute statement ‘Our clients make the decisions’
I am glad one of the big firms have come out and voiced this. We are seeing more articles where accounts 'should be doing more!' or are to blame for their clients decisions on their business. We can advise, we can highlight errors, BUT it is not our decision to make the change. This can be seen with Auto-enrolment, CIS and agency workers, IR35, Aggressive tax avoidance schemes, and a whole lot of other issues that surround our industry.
Well done and well said.
The clients do take the final decision, however this is based on they advice from E&Y et al.
The clients would surely be unaware of such aggressive schemes if it were not for such advisors bringing them to their attention.
I wonder how many businesses or HNWI pay for such professional advice and then decide to do something different ?