Interesting that 3 firms have turned him down. What happens if the company is boycotted? Presumably the audit fee would just hit the ceiling or he would be unaudited.
If more auditors took a risk assessment on those clients likely to prove a disaster, most of the public works industry, for example - what would happen then?
Would HMG have to step in with a Government Backed Auditor to do all those jobs the profession wouldn't touch?
Judging by the levels of competence shown by HMRC and the FCA I should think the profession would have a good laugh.
We do live in interesting times don't we?
AbFab! Now HMG can look at a new tax stream - doesn't matter if BA were to go bust as long as HMG has a few quid to waste on making people's life more difficult.
Net result air fares go up and Jo Public pays the price or cost cut and shed a few jobs to cover it. Pity they aren't in the GDPR shop which cannot even get its own stuff right. Bet they didn't fine themselves!
Personally I think we should go back to cash think of the wheelbarrows full of plastic fivers that would be needed to pay that fine. Now there is an idea.
Well no surprises there but it's a bit thick to blame it all on the actual auditors. A lot of the 'misses' are directly due to misrepresentation by the Directors and their accounting delegates. In the computerised world in which we live it is very easy for naughty people to hide things from sight and much more difficult for the auditors to spot it. The sheer volume of figures suggests that it is becoming an impossible task. I recall that Carillion foundered because an in house accountant blew the whistle on some shortcomings. I also recall that she had been there about 3 months. This implies that 3 months involvement in the Company threw up shortcomings but how would auditors spot that in 3 weeks of an audit.
It's all very well for the MPs and the FCA to throw up their arms in horror but they have no idea of the problems faced at ground level and like most people in such positions they talk off the top of their heads.
I am not an apologist for the big firms but I do think that the arguments are a bit one-sided. The whole system of audits needs to be rethought and viewed from a totally different perspective. The MPs and FCA will not help by trying to be clever when they are not.
Wow! £94 million! At least it wouldn't be quite enough for the auditors to notice. Rather makes you wonder why we bother to audit. Let's all go and have coffee and cakes somewhere.
In my experience the 'rich' are ok because their loans are paid off or capable of being paid off. The smaller people in the middle of the market trying to save for retirement are hit very hard and they are probably the best landlords. Not everyone wants to buy so a rental market is needed but HMG/HMRC are pushing the market into big companies who are often not sympathetic landlords.
As for the effect on the housing market the developers actually need BTL buyers to be able to sell them their houses and get the sites moving.
As for the sites the biggest problem seems to be the slowness of the planning system which seems to take a minimum of 5 years to promote and get planning permission.
It's the old story of Government interference doing more harm than good because they don't think ahead to the implications of what they do.
Been in this job so long that ICAEW sent me a long service certificate. Still can't let it go but it is far less enjoyable than it used to be. Far too much time wasted on such as FRS, AML, GDPR, MTD and the like which waste tons of time for no real gain. If only HMG and the ASB and HMRC would stop and think before they crash ahead with time wasting bureaucracy we might all be better off.
I recollect that in the 'good old days' (GOD) we could manage to get a set of company accounts onto 5 pages now it's more like 15 and the client finds it harder to understand because it's all in FRS speak with GAAPs in understanding here and there. I heard a lecturer the other day saying that FRS was not fit for purpose - does anyone disagree?
Perhaps they should abandon acronyms!
Pathetic! The over-regulation by the professional bodies is a bigger problem. When you need their help it often isn't forthcoming and one has to wonder whether their regulation is worth the paper it's printed on. Wasn't there a Company called Carillion or something that rang a bell where the heavily regulated auditors made a bit of a hash of things. Oh they were or will be punished for it but the cost of regulation makes doing the job a bit difficult. Auditing is more a case of completing the paperwork according to the book and ticking the right boxes rather than thinking about what is going on. It shouldn't be but human nature is what it is.
Tax compliance is just a nightmare with HMRC and HMG not knowing what they are doing and what the effects of what they do will be. This makes life difficult enough without the added burden of more and more regulation so to suggest that even more people should be buried in paperwork providing employment for jobsworths to go around making a nuisance of themselves doesn't attract me personally.
Yes, we occasionally come across agents who aren't as good as they might be but not all of them are unqualified and we also come across good unqualified agents so they are just like the rest of us.
The last thing we need is a new pile of regulation because it will certainly make more work for those of us who are regulated as there will be fallout from it as there always is.
My feeling is that MTD is pointless - the information HMRC will get is the same as before and the accuracy will be no better possibly worse judging by what we have seen with clients operating new bookkeeping systems which are too clever by half for simple people. Wrong VAT rates being applied is the most common area followed by duplicated entries and so on.
Add to this the time wasted training bookkeepers on the new systems where they were perfectly accurate on older systems.
So far excel based answers seem to be the most effective but that isn't what HMRC are wanting. Older clients really struggle with the new fancy 'we can do everything including blow your nose' programs.
Usual story I suppose HMRC, HMG and the accounting bodies not living in the real world where older clients would prefer to earn money rather than play with bookkeeping systems that are complex to work.
Yes - before anyone says it - I am one who finds the new generation of programs less easy to work than what went before. They just take longer to process and when the client goofs off it is much slower to correct. So much for progress.
In the old days when HMRC had offices with people this wouldn't have happened because the people were trained and had an element of what used to be called 'common sense'. Now the staff are partly trained and used to following the rule book so have no 'common sense'. The Iceland case shows this very clearly.
Unfortunately 'common sense' has now become 'uncommon sense' not helped I am sure by the virtually incomprehensible tax regime under which we now live.
I should have thought that this was a load of b******s as the LibDem chap so eloquently put it - what is his name? Is it Vince or something like that?
In this part of the midlands people in accountancy certainly don't appear to be upper crust but are in fact reasonably diverse by any standards.
Education is however a driver and those from 'bad' schools will obviously struggle.
A university teacher to whom I spoke some while back said that with a lot of students he had to teach them what they ought to have learned in sixth form before he could even start degree work.
Diversity is a great idea but it should start in primary school or better still with the parents. Children starting school now are not always toilet trained and often have to be literally spoon fed. So how are the teachers supposed to teach them?
The problem is being looked at from the wrong end.