OptionsThis is a very sensibe question, and you seem to have set realistic targets for self-advancement. The AAT qualification is non unrecognized in ireland, contrary to a previous poster. The ICAI has its own AAT level qualification, but it uses the traditional exam route.
You have answered your own question within your post. The AAT allows you to take modules that are practical and targeted towards the particuar sector you wish to work in. However the UK Payroll module is based on UK Payroll system (not too different to Irish).
Have you considered the ACCA? ACCA has a flexible Certified Accounting Technician program, with routes to the ACCA qualification that is on a par with CIMA for working in Industry, but has the public practice dimension should you choose later on to engage in public practice. ACCA operates in the UK and Ireland, and transition is seamless. The ACCA CAT program will exempt you for what yuu have covered already. In Ireland the ICAI, ACCA and CIMA brands are well recognized and the CPA Ireland is catching up, though this route is very much aimed at persons wishing to work in practice.
It is an interesting career choice, and I wish you well. Read the websites of the various Institites and Associations and pick something that best meets your personal and developmental needs. And, good luck!
so does accountingweb....Nobody will have a problem with a service provider who offers specific services for a fee, after all, potential clients are free to pay or ignore. However, this particular set of benefits is packaged in such a way that the public may be misled into believing that they are a UK recognised professional accountancy supervisory or qualifying body. Martin Foley has made some compelling points which deserve answers...
icpa? beware false prophetsI never heard of ICPA until I read the website referred to in this post. It seems like a novel way to sell insurance. With fees of £50 a MONTH plus VAT for "membership" and none of the usual educational or other requirements, it seems like a fairly crude attempt to make money from persons who have failed their professional exams but are practising anyway.
There's some mileage in the old horse yetI disagree, they will get to the last 4, possibly last 2. There needs to be a coup within the team to make this happen, however. Sven's decisions have been poor all along. Let's take last night's game for example:(a) This game was his only opportunity to use Walcott. His failure to use him (for pace) together with Rooney is inexplicable. Crouch has been disastrous, the three bounces in the 6 yard area of the england goal that cost us a victory over Sweden were the fault of Sol Campbell, Beckham and Crouch, who stood in the net behind the hapless robinson and headed the ball north.(b) Owen's departure is a good sign; england have always done better after taking him off(c)hargreaves did well last night, and Rooney showed Gazza signs of brilliance. Generally the team were excellent in the first half, and then Sven spoke with them.(d) Donkey shold have started in goal, as Robinson is off formBring on Neville, expand the midfield to include Gerrard, Lampard and Terry, stick Rooney up front and tie Rio to the left side of the goal postIts not over by a long shot, lets hope the players organise themselves and do what they do best, England to win (from an irishman!)
yesThe difference in amount between (a) and (b) represents the expected value of a more or less favourable judgement on the facts of the case, depending on the perspective.An unfair dismissal claim, if proven, will result in reinstatement with loss of earnings, or loss of earnings plus compensation for loss of earnings that arise because you need to find another job.
The key element here is "loss of earnings", and earnings are subject to tax.
yesAssuming your client was operating a business in the UK, he would need to declare all income from that business, and use the provisions of the double-tax treaty between UK and Germany to avoid a double tax charge.
Try POBA at the FRC. Assuming you need this information for reserach purposes, they may release it.Otherwise, you will need to contact the Recognised Supeovisory Bodies in the UK, each of whom will have lists of their members' accounting firms e.g.:ICAEWACCAICAS
here is the answerCheck out the following link to the EU wide VAT66 scheme:
If in doubt, contact the UK VAT 66 office (contact details on this page) and they should be able to explain the likely nature of the letter.
professional accountantsAny person who claims to be an accountant is a part of the profession? I disagree. The general public believes that an accountant is someone who has gained the required knowledge, passed rigourous exams, achieved appropriate experience and is subject to some kind of professional oversight. This is not the case with unqualifieds. Though I have no doubt that many unqalifieds are as ethical as members of the Chartered bodies, it is insufficient protection of the public interest to rely upon the probability that such an unqualified can be sanctioned by a court. Why even bother have a financial services authority, or financial reporting council, or a public oversight body, not to mind professional bodies? A person who has passed the professional exams and gained the required experience and practice authority has far more to lose if found careless, incompetent for a specific task or negligent, and is more likely to be disciplined by the professional body before a court is needed.
In the USA a State Board license is required by any person offering accounting, tax or audit services to the public. Jail and heavy fines are the sanctions for unlicensed persons who hold themselves out as providers of such services to the public. The UK profession should seek to protect the title "accountant" and bring about a similar situation. How many persons would be happy to visit and be operated upon by an unqualified doctor or surgeon?
It wont workThis will not wash. The law distinguishes between residence, ordinary residence and domicile, and the specific treatment of income will depend on, at least, a combination of the first two of these. If your client maintains all but his physical presence in the country, I cannot see how he can avoid the tax even if he does spend more than 183 days outside of the UK.
Is this a serious question?I find the following comment outrageous:
"I still find I wonder how exactly employers can be expected to monitor private use without examining hard drives from time to time. Has anyone got any practical suggestions?"
The IR comments make it abundantly clear that employers are NOT expected to monitor private use of computers, any more than they are expected to monitor the private use of calculators. For example, if home User A spends 10 hours preparing a business plan using Excel, and User B gets the same work completed in 4 hours and spends the afternoon playing PC noddy games with his kids, as far as the employer is concerned, the job is done with the tool provided. On the other hand, if home worker A has been provided with a desktop, and a few months later with a laptop, then the employer would need to simply decide which, if either computer, represents a gift, unless the home worker travels and needs away access to computing facilities.
The only people who stand to benefit from the above argument are tax advisors, who increasingly seem to use negative marketing tactics to win fees, by frightening business owners into believing that the IR are far less reasonable and that businesses should employ tax advisers to avoid dire consequences. The tax industry should campaign on behalf of their clients for a radically simplified regime, rather than encouraging such discussion as how employers should monitor private use of computers!
Browned OffEntry, exit and management charges plus contractual terms designed punish investors at every turn are the reasons for deterring would be investors. There is a point where I would agree with the industry however, and that is that Brown is unfit to be chancellor, not to mind PM.
GoodI had not seen the original article, or the accountingweb article, but I appreciate accountingweb's action and apology to Mr Harris, whoever he is. Newspapers are notorious for retracting false or misleading stories via very small print. The internet is notorious for perpetuating nonsense, so accountingweb's action in removing something that is wrong, and apologising in the same vein as an original news item, is commendable.
Good BlogWhatever about ELS which I have no professional interest in at present, I think Dennis's blog pages are a revelation. Extremely well written, informative, interesting and often entertaining. I have added to my favourites list.
Poker Bots, you have been warnedI am not a gambler, but I am facinated by the lunacy implied by the explosion in online gambling. Here is a warning from one accountant to all: What I would call Poker Bots are in widespread use on the internet. A poker bot is a program that executes online deals when its user is fast asleep or otherwise engaged. It is programmed to apply the rules of poker in a consistent way, masquerading as a human player. Those thousands of punters who spend hours on end playing poker are playing against the dealer's computer, as well as any number of others, which are the poker bots deployed by the professional gamblers. Have you ever played chess or similar game against a computer? Spread betting has many similar characteristics, and nothing would surprise me less than the emergence of bots that will harvest small returns, at the expense of the speculative gambler. Stick to the lotto, as that's something you know you will not win, but at least the money goes to some good causes.
Potential for improving tax systemShouldn't the system then award a single cash benefit that is attached to the child, rather than the economic or social circumstances of its parents? A single payment would therefore be made to the legal guardian (usually parent) of the child. Social engineers will fret that such a system will provide cash benefits to higher earners, who should not get same, or as much as a lower earner. However, does the monstrous cost of administering the complex bureaucracy (required to ensure that child related benefits go to lower income families only) justify the saving by not having a flat benefit regime?
Tax practicesRichard, i am not defending the Big 4 and others, merely pointing out that their tax avoidance evolved as a consequence of poorly designed laws. (Or, well designed laws that contained exemptions designed to favour certain vested interests and lobbyists)!I largely agree with the sentiments of Prof Sikka who has pointed out that the superwealthy have cyncially avoided or even evaded taxation with the assistance of tax experts. This tax expertise could be used to create a better tax system.If society perceives the tax system to be fair, compliance is encouraged, and avoision is more frowned upon. In our society we have a culture of making everybody pay for the sins of the few. SMEs are being hammered by an excessively bureaucratic system. The complexity may well have been engineered to minimize the incidence of non compliance, but the inbuilt assumptions that all taxpayers are presumed guilty until they prove themselves compliant (with the aid of the tax advice industry) is the source of the problem, not the solution.Separately, a constant diet of stories in the media about multi billion waste in public spending adds to the unease about taxation generally. If the controls on public spending (to eliminate waste, fraud etc) were as rigourous as the controls imposed in the administration of taxes, then there would be scope for optimizing tax rates, achieving social goals and encouraging society to feel they are contributing towards the greater good in paying taxes.
Its new LabourThere's a difference between evading tax and avoiding tax. Just as lawyers exploit weaknesses and gaps in laws to defend clients, accountants and tax lawyers do the same. They are not the source of the problem, rather they could be part of the answer. Since New Labour came to power, the tax system has exploded in size and complexity. Does anyone compare the cost of implementing a law with the revenue generated? I doubt it. Micromanagement by armies of officials seems to be New Labour's contribution to taxation. More and more countries are debating the merits of flat taxes with simultaneous abolition of excess and uneconomic bureaucrat job-creating regulation. Its high time for a similar debate in the UK. When Old Labour raised marginal income tax rates to dizzying heights, the wealthy fled to well known tax havens such as the USA and Ireland. The Civil Service are big enough, and sufficiently remunerated to get proposed tax laws right the first time round, and politicians like Brown should be competent enough to manage the process properly. Any political party that promises to end the culture of overregulation with associated criminlzation of the mainly compliant many will deserve a hearing at the next election.
SudokuPuzzle has more than one solution. Once a person has figured out how to solve Sudoku puzzles in a few minutes, without the aid of software, the novelty quickly fades. A bit like the rubik cube. The website sudoku.org.uk contains a daily puzzle and a database of past puzzles for those still practising! By the way, this is a self balancing exercise. A solution is correct if it meets the rules. A puzzle is poorly constructed if more than one valid solution exists.
InexplicableThe politicians, unions and media have all made statements bemoaning the demise of the "great name" Rover. SAIC bought the rights and technology to make the cars, the name is meaningless in China. I am sure that BMW will allow SAIC to use the name if they want.If Rover was a valuable brand, this would have been reflected in vehicle sales. Rover cars are perceived as outdated, unreliable and unattractive. Top Gear recently describe the V8 Rover 75 as a "belter". It is a pity that so many employees, indirect employees and customers have been let down so badly by shareholders and management.