It is time that Audit and other services were properly separated ie the same firm cant do both for the same client and not just the partner as it has been
Furthermore the selection of Auditors for PLC's should be taken out of their hands and assigned by the government (or a regulator on their behalf)
Or maybe we should go the whole hog and Audit of PLC's be done directly by a Gov't body.
Ath the end of the day the Auditor needs to be able to Audit impartially without a watching eye on other fees or continuing fees
I sort of get the idea where the original Invoice has actually been paid before the credit note is issued - seems fair that the supplier is obliged to issue a refund...
However: In the normal course of a commercial relationship it is quite normal for an invoice to not be paid because a credit is due then when the credit note is raised, it is offset against the invoice and payment for the net amount is made.
The above article implies to me that the supplier would have to insist on payment in full and also issue a refund.
Only in the case of insolvency, and retail, IE where the customer cannot offset the credit note does this make sense
Damned if you do - Damned if you don't!
It seems to me that the equitable thing to do would be to let the amounts under £500 lie - as they've already put that out, and ask for amounts over £500, allowing the ex employee to keep the first £500. Tesco's just needs to take this one on the chin and tighten up it's processes.
Under MLR though, there is no de-minimis limit and so you will always get SARs where modest amounts are involved and that is how you clog up the system.
Trouble is that's how money laundering works
Lots of small transactions that are untraceable
What's needed is a means by which the authorities can use and act upon the data provided
The quality of the data is obviously key!
And £10 taken from the till, whilst it is theft is it really money laundering? - that, IMHO needs to be filtered out.
Volunteered or "Volunteered"!!
The government will steamroller on regardless despite the obvious flaws because to do anything else would be to admit they were wrong
Accountant A stops auditing client 1, recommends Accountant B. Accountant A continues providing Non Audit Services to client 1
Accountant B stops auditing client 2, recommends Accountant A, Accountant B continues providing Non Audit services to client 2
Accountant A and B go and play golf and congratulate each other on the acquisition of each new Audit client
Accountant A and B feel smug that they've dealt with the apparent conflict of interest without any new regulator nosing in to their business
Isn't "mutuality of obligation" present in every commercial contract ever!!!
I.E. The contract obliges one party to supply goods or services and obliges the other party to pay for that supply
Or am I being too simplistic?
Hmmm - we've seen a similar problem with the Banks
Also there was a similar shake up a number of years ago, but the fundamental problem still exists that the Audit firms also have (lucrative) consulting businesses and the problem also lies with the Directors and shareholders of the companies being audited, who should be looking out for such conflicts of interest when appointing.
In my opinion, breaking the big 4 up will not make much difference (BT, Banks...) but forcing the PLC's to change auditors, say, every 3 years might, especially if those auditors are appointed by the Government (as an independent body) rather than by the directors. Combine this with some real power to do something when audits fail and we might get somewhere.
There is an urgent need to decouple audit from the other services accountancy firms offer and not being incentivised to "win other business" off the back of audit would allow the Audit and other services to stand side by side, but also on their own merits.
It's History repeating itself
Just look back to the Construction Industry Scheme for how this is going to play out...