MPs support restrictions on unregulated agents
Three-quarters (78%) of 103 MPs are in favour of introducing compulsory membership of a professional body for anyone offering paid-for tax and accountancy services, according to a new survey by the AAT.
Replies (15)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Hopefully something has changed - but I think it will need to be driven by HMRC and will focus on who can act for clients when dealing with HMRC.
Some years ago, during the Coalition Government, when Vince Cable was Business Secretary, he offered to introduce new laws to restrict use of the word 'accountant'. Any change was to be conditional upon him being satisfied that it would be in the public interest. The professional bodies sought to collate evidence about poor advice etc from unqualified accountants. Sadly no one could prove this was any worse than the poor advice being given by qualified accountants.
I have written before about how restricting use of the word 'accountant' could well backfire; as in, be careful what you wish for.
But restricting who can provide tax advice and engage with HMRC is a much more realistic target.
I say this whilst also admitting that I chair the Tax Advice Network, the UK's largest network of independent tax advisers - not all of whom have a professional qualification. However, they all satisfy our membership criteria - including those who were time barred from exams or who secured their tax training whilst working for HMRC
Mark, I have seen people on your so-called approved list causing all kinds of trouble, so I don't think that's much of a Kitemark so to speak! In particular, do you monitor your list for anyone subject to regulatory disapproval etc. and chuck them off as necessary? If not, why not?
well, accountancy just got a lot more expensive.
Unrepresented tax payers will become even more unrepresented - while they can and when they can't the black economy beckons.
Not that I care too much - i've quit.
Why not have compulsory membership of a professional body for politicians ? How much training do politicians have ?
it seems quite simple to restrict HMRC access as agents to those who are members of the relevant bodies. Those who practice within the guidelines of qualified members as the vast majority of QBE's do, already have to pay HMRC for money laundering registration so it should be little odds to have to pay a regulating body instead.
Of course what you wont stop is bookkeeper "playing accountant" by completing the tax payer's return on the tax payer's log ins, but overall its got to be a step forward.
He who pays for the poll gets the desired response.
The real crooks selling tax evasion (avoidance that fails is no different to evasion) schemes would be unaffected.
They sell schemes
They do not represent clients
Where's the evidence of this being a problem? Let's face it . . . . . we can all see where the cartel has led us - were there any unregulated practitioners involved in the Carillion fiasco? How many millions or, indeed, billions of innocent parties money has to be wasted and, in fact in many cases, defrauded before the regulated are actually regulated? Talk about the emperor's new clothes! Physician heal thyself!
This is long, long overdue. It's not unreasonable for the public to expect that their accountants have had some basic test of competence during their career and have PI, CPD and someone to complain to when things go wrong. By all means grandfather in existing unqualifieds, but in this day and age anyone new coming into the profession should be required to be a member of a professional body. Qualifications like AAT/ATT are really not difficult. Another issue, that does not seem to get much mention is that a practising accountant can get struck off, imprisoned, bankrupted (we all know some of these) and there is nothing stopping them from carrying on practising as if nothing had happened - this is completely untenable.
I see bookkeepers are on Annexe C list.
I’m an agent bookkeeper/accountant with a small “a”, having passed AAT exams 30 years ago. I am not a member of any professional body. I worked in various industries for 20 years then spent 10 years working in a CIOT practice, before setting up my own practice 7 years ago. I deal with Sole Traders and Ltd. I do VAT/CIS/PAYE/monthly Management Accounts/draft year end Management Accounts (all fully reconciled).
I work closely with a medium size firm of Chartered Accountants who deal with SATRs, Statutory Accounts, CT, other tax issues, and tax planning. They rarely make journal adjustments to my draft year-end figures.
How will the hundreds of other unregulated agent bookkeepers in a similar position be able to continue working if they will be required to be a member of a professional body?
We are living in the 'self assessment' age, have a go and do it yourself. All the information you need is available online at the HMRC web site, just use the atrocious search engine!
Should all HMRC's 'customers' therefore belong to a relevant body?
Would these be the same MPs involved in the 2009 expenses scandal where everthing fom the Sunday church collection to duck houses was claimed not to mention the 'second homes 'and 'flipping' fiascos. Were their agents members of professional bodies or not ?
Jesse Norman would do well to dig out the incompetency within the so called regulated market rather than just discriminate against the [ in her words ] ' minority'
You may find Jesse Norman more receptive if you refer to his (rather than her) words ... but it would indeed be interesting to know which MPs used an agent and which self-completed.
As so often the case nowadays the waters are being (deliberately?) muddied here.
The consultation talks about the 'tax adviser' market, whilst a lot of the press (including this site) and the vested interests of the accounting professional bodies have taken this to be all about regulating Accountants.
Back in the real world there are plenty of Accountants (even if you restrict the label to those who are qualified) who aren't in practice and don't perform any Agent duties - and similarly there are plenty (quite possibly tens of thousands) of people who can't even spell accountancy but provide specialist tax advice on a daily basis ... which directly affects what and how figures are reported to HMRC even though the 'customer' pushes the button.
And this latter group aren't unknowledgeable or shady - indeed quite the opposite as they are professionals in their own right (in Employment, Payroll, Pensions, Property and many other fields).
So can we please get HMRC to come clean about what they are actually trying to tackle?