Hello
With the move by HMRC to have QBE practitioners to be regulated by a professional body, I wondered what learned colleagues though of the prospect that HMRC/ the professional body/ bodies that allow QBE to join will require them to pass an exam, whether the full qualification suite or an entry exam?
In the consultation document, there is no mention of such.
Infact, "Example 1: Becoming a member of a professional body - A tax practitioner would need to meet professional body membership requirements such as, being registered for AML supervision by HMRC or a professional body supervisor, holding a relevant qualification or equivalent number of years experience, obtaining professional indemnity insurance, undertaking continuing professional development and declaring they will abide by the professional body’s code of conduct."
Also in the document "clients can be assured their tax practitioner has met minimum requirements to practice. This could be delivered by, for example, requirements of minimum qualification, skill level or equivalent number of years’ experience for practitioners"
The above indicates exams/ qualifcations will not be required for the assimilation of QBE practitioners. Is that the view per se, as I have seen comments elsewhere suggesting exams may indeed be required? Based on the consultation document they are not..
I think it reasonable for QBE to be regulated; for us to sign up to a code of conduct and have redress if we are found to have breached said code.
But, enforcing exams on circa 25,000 trading QBEs seems excessive, if that is in any way the plan.
Many, like me, will be middle-aged or older and not have the ability to study and work and 'do life'.
It would be a dramatic change of criteria to practice.
I see the argument that for new practices/ accountants- they don't have the experience.
So QBE will be phased out.
But many of us have worked in the industry for decades with no issues.
Personally, I already have Public Indemnity Insurance, am an HMRC Agent and have AML Supervision via HMRC.
I can see the need for CPD and have commenced documenting.
So, what do people think?
Will membership be as per consultation document i.e "holding a relevant qualification or equivalent number of years experience" ?
Related resources
Replies (22)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I understand your concerns (and share many of them), but the clue is in the name ... it is nominally a Consultation, so no full decisions have been taken as of today.
Now I'm not so naïve as to think that they are not determined, ahead of any feedback they receive, to plough ahead with *something* ... but what that 'something' is (let alone how it will be implemented at the practical level that understandably concerns you) is yet to be agreed.
As always, it's likely that those with what might be thought of as opposing interests to the QBE part of our sector (step forward the PBs) will have a loud voice - partly because they have resources specifically employed to respond such consultations and partly because they're known to those reviewing any feedback.
Which of course makes it all the more important that people like you invest the time to respond formally to them ... a bit like the lottery's "you've got to be in it to win it"!
However if you're just looking for something to ease your stress over the next few days & months then it's a different ball-game.
All the 'nightmare' scenarios (like every person needing to take/pass exams within 5 years) are impossible to implement at every level so, a bit like MTD ITSA, the talks will drag on for many a year whilst their objectives/demands are slowly watered down. Which is a shame in some ways, but pragmatic.
As it is, the current proposals have more holes than a colander ... but just imagine when two points already made on this site gain traction:
- if practitioners need to be 'qualified' then what about HMRC inspectors/support ...
- if the 'qualification' is based on passing an exam then what about regular updates ...
At present accountants/bookkeepers in practice (i.e. those who issue invoices for the work they do) are subject to the MLR 2017 and are required to have a supervisory body dealing with their AML compliance. (This includes of course accountants - like myself - who do no tax work.)
Would it not be simple to build on those existing arrangements to cover appropriate standards of tax advice? Why have an entirely separate mechanism to cover tax advice? Am I missing something?
David
The only thing I can think of is that AML isn't specifically for tax or accounting, while I'd hope that this new proposition would be.
I believe this one is tax only (not for accounting which does not involve tax compliance or tax advice).
David
What about qualified accountants who have retired from their professional body but still work part time in their dotage??
What about qualified accountants who have retired from their professional body but still work part time in their dotage??
Like me.
Definitely in my dotage. So grateful to some of you younger chaps answering my questions from time to time.
I still pay my fees, AML, insurance, CPD etc. Still supply service to just 8 clients now.
I think all should be made to sit exams, QBE/ICAEW/ICAS/ACCA, the lot.
This is nothing to do with professional standards and all to do with settling the great qualified/unqualified debate that rages every so often on Accounting Web, in fact maybe Accounting Web could sponsor some prizes.
The exam will be like the old ICAS TPC (I have no idea what is done these days), a multi faceted test incorporating multiple taxes, some legal interpretation, tax treatment following accounting treatment so odd accounting interpretation facets and will of course feature extracting money on the cheap plus an SPV.
Accounting Web can trawl past posts on here for other likely areas to be included .We might also have say an extra credit question set by say Richard Thomas that only a select few will even attempt plus could feature the David Winch possible Money Laundering scenario question.
I think all of this will be great fun (for the observer) and will also clearly demonstrate how useful all that CPD really was in keeping skills updated.
A time Travel aspect to any question might also be usefu. Maybe two three hour papers, a morning one and an afternoon one, then all aspirants could congregate down the pub to give tax advice.
I think all should be made to sit exams, QBE/ICAEW/ICAS/ACCA, the lot.
This is nothing to do with professional standards and all to do with settling the great qualified/unqualified debate that rages every so often on Accounting Web, in fact maybe Accounting Web could sponsor some prizes.
The exam will be like the old ICAS TPC (I have no idea what is done these days), a multi faceted test incorporating multiple taxes, some legal interpretation, tax treatment following accounting treatment so odd accounting interpretation facets and will of course feature extracting money on the cheap plus an SPV.
Accounting Web can trawl past posts on here for other likely areas to be included .We might also have say an extra credit question set by say Richard Thomas that only a select few will even attempt plus could feature the David Winch possible Money Laundering scenario question.
I think all of this will be great fun (for the observer) and will also clearly demonstrate how useful all that CPD really was in keeping skills updated.
A time Travel aspect to any question might also be usefu. Maybe two three hour papers, a morning one and an afternoon one, then all aspirants could congregate down the pub to give tax advice.
Or ask MDTP for the answers
I guess I have trust issues when it comes to HMRC and this government.
I wonder why..
No, if you take the paper as red then yes, my question has been answered.
Ignoring the question but I'll add something to the discussion.
I have concerns regarding the transition to requiring all accountants become members of PBs if this is the route that the government opts for. I do subscribe to the premises that I have met very competent QBEs(/non-current member of a PB) and some rather interesting characters with FCA after their names; and this whole thing might be pointless as an experienced, intelligent management accountant might have no idea what their doing advising on CGT but would be deemed competent to do so. To counter this if they were a member of a PB and signed up to a code of ethics/conduct then the management accountant should know they should not practice in an area they are unfamiliar but I digress.
I did attend FAB last week and went and lobbied HMRC to the best of my ability for QBEs and the like but I did not appreciate the attitude of the civil servant I spoke to. It seemed to be his opinion that it would be no issue for QBEs to pass an exam to prove competence (an almost fair point) but he repeatedly referred to QBEs as unqualified when many are qualified but don't hold current membership or resigned it a long time ago. I think semantics are important here and the civil servant seemed dismissive. (Emphasis on this being one individual I spoke with and not HMRC as an institution.)
The other issue I have is that it could be reliant on the PBs having a fair approach to accepting new members and if they all required a QBE to pass an exam and have experience within an accredited firm holding a PC then this could force some sole practitioners out of business. The PBs will look after their own interests and it could end up where they all point at each other and say I thought the ACCA/AAT/IFA/AIA/[insert PB of choice] were going to take on the QBEs.
So you might solve that by forcing the PBs to accept QBEs with an equivalent number of years experience but then that's yet more rules/regulation that still doesn't solve the problem of cowboy firms like LessTax4Landlords or Property118 who have accountants that are members of PBs along with regulated solicitors flogging nonsense schemes then running off to Malta.
The summary is get your responses in to the consultation - just don't think about the fact the minister will still be able to ignore the recommendation and do as they please anyway... Democracy in action!
If he thinks QBE's are all unqualified, taking a competency point of view re the word "unqualified", what does that say about his opinion of his former Civil Servant colleagues who were previously with HMRC, either recently or distantly, and who are now plying their trade in the private sector? (Best individual I ever came across, re what were then called back duty cases, was a former HMRC inspector with a niche dealing with same)
Many a post on this site bemoans that "Accountant" is not a reserved occupation (like say "solicitor") and thus they have just received a new client (read: Bag of spanners) who had no idea that the person they were using was a cowboy/girl. Its not always the consumers fault as they didn't know that cheap also meant made up!
So I fully support this as step in the right direction. With it though has to come two things:
1) QBE people will have to have some yardstick to prove competence. Exams are the yardstick that the PBs use, but perhaps evidence of years served could also suffice?
2) All of us (PB or QBE) will then have to understand we are a more properly regulated profession and thus more likely that we will be called to account. Read the disciplinary pages of the Solicitors Regulation Authority website versus those of the ICAEW or ACCA and you'll see what that actually means
I don't think this is a bad thing at all (and certainly very positive for consumer protection). But to miss quote Marvel - "with such powers come such responsibilities"
Do not disagree but think solicitor rule "levels" are only really appropriate to money handlers (client funds), a lot are there to stop theft/fraud more than make sure they do a good job to ethical standards.
I also struggle to see how accreditation is to work where the scope of services an accountant might offer is so wide. Insolvency Practitioners have different regulation from other accountants, perhaps the qualifications of accountants need narrowed, perhaps there ought to say be a small business practitioner qualification?
Because if not, you are likely going to end up with lots of 40 etc year old QBE's studying business finance or statistics where they never previously needed either and post passing any exam will never use either.
For that matter, some of the standards in large firms to SME accounting has been observed as woefully poor and over priced over the years, maybe there is a need for very distinct qualifications, a two, three, four path profession, though it will be a shame as over time the ability for an accountant to move career over the divide may become far more limited.
"I also struggle to see how accreditation is to work where the scope of services an accountant might offer is so wide" ... a point I've been trying (and mostly failing) to seed throughout most of these discussions.
You've probably got more direct experience regarding the Solicitor model that is held up as a potential model - but, in my experience of hiring any, their practical skills are extremely narrow.
I wouldn't appoint the one used for conveyancing to handle a divorce, or the latter to handle a personal injury claim, or that one to administer an Estate, and so on.
[Actually in many cases their skill sets appear to be either woefully narrow even within their specialism or just yonks out of date ... but that's a different matter.]
You can see on this site, the smallish handful of members who obviously have real in-depth knowledge of one aspect of Tax (which is not to say that their expertise stops at those boundaries or that some generalists aren't both knowledgeable and efficient in researching where necessary) ... but I know most people approaching a Professional (seeing the quals/right to use the title and associated fees) expect nothing but the best!
And they are possibly less likely to be disappointed in that when appointing a Solicitor - because that is so often for a one-off project, which means they never get to see any discomfort if the services required stray outside the person's core skillset/expertise.
Whereas with the 'generalist' Accountant, where would you (or anybody) draw the boundaries? From posts on here, I suspect they're needed - but how/where?
Some solicitors offer a range, tends to be the smaller operators, sole practitioners, but even then they tend to stick to an area of work.
In my late father's firm all those years ago by the time he retired there was one partner who did court work, one (my father) who did Wills, Trusts and Landed Estates (with a little company law thrown in but not much) and one who seemed to dabble in Executries and Conveyancing. (In the 50s- 70s there had been 4-5 partners I believe but I never worked there until my mid teens by which time just three partners remained and circa 20 staff, 4-5 being qualified solicitors the rest being typists, cashroom staff and me, the lowly part time/holiday mail room clerk)
My solicitor (just him on his own) does Trust Management, Wills, Leasing, Conveyancing, POAs but no court work/debt recovery work etc and would be unlikely to create trusts (he only does trust admin because he inherited a fair bit of my father's trust practice)
Bigger firms- you have teams of them working/charging, right now we are hard into a s162 incorporation re our partnership, I have our normal conveyancer to shift the properties, one solicitor on LBTT and two on corporate work(though there are two corporate lawyers because after a hive up we then perform a partition demerger, if just the s162 to do I suspect fewer lawyers would be needed)
As several posts have said, I'm planning to get my submission in to the consultation.
The point I want to make is that accountancy as a service is already priced too high for a huge number of the relatively new cohort of self employed people who have either been forced into or have found an attractive niche as self employed in the restructuring of the workforce over the last 10-15 years.
This is the cohort I serve, and I have deliberately structured my operations and pricing to be accessible to them, including charging for AML right from the get-go.
I see time and again how having to pay a £50-100 "entry fee" (i.e. AML check) before getting even 5 minutes of consultation places my service even further out of reach for many people. In this context the dreaded "mate down the pub" is not simply an attractive option but really the ONLY option.
Placing further obligations on the many QBE practitioners in the UK will only make this situation worse. This issue of access to the profession for people only just paying the bills is really vital to be addressed during this "raising standards" process yet it is not seriously being discussed.
The situation looks totally daft and ill thought out
Ownership of our industry will be solely in the hands of the professional bodies with a finite number of members. Where will the extra accountancy practitioners be produced to mop up the clients needing support, whose advisors cannot join the "gang"
Will HMRC 's word be law and no argument allowed ??
Some of the minor professional bodies will offer full membership and practising certificates to QBEs based on their experience. I can hear their tills ringing already...ker-ching!
Any competency exam is likely to have the bar set low (as low as the Freeaegent exam for accountants wanting to don a Freeagent badge).
