Qualified…for what?

by admin on July 18, 2006

in Tax and Ethics

Regular readers will know that Ken Frost is always extolling the pre-eminence of the ICAEW as a qualifying body for professionals in practice. I’d largely agree but with one caveat.

It’s clear that CAs (the same as any other accountant) have to specialise if they’re to give of their best. So how many do? How many for instance can honestly say that beyond the basics, they’ve a clear grasp of a particular aspect of the tax system – widely considered to be one of the most complex systems on the planet? I doubt it is many.

So imagine how horrified I was to read that Neil Eglintine (behind the AW walled garden) believes:

The purpose of the engagement letter is to limit the accountant’s liability (even if it’s dressed up as client support, etc).

Where does it say that in the Member’s Manual? Am I right to assume that professionals are so concerned about their ability (forget professional indemnity insurance), they need LOEs that insulate them from civil action?

If you can’t do the job or don’t have the humility to find someone who knows more than you, don’t offer in the first place. Anything else is a con. Another reason why the profession needs a solid ethics syllabus and examining paper.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

being a systems accountant I am that specialised mug! I use that description with some feeling - sitting between users and developers is definitely a mugs game (you have to do it to know what that means). Of course as an excel anarok I much prefer solving excel problems, but because of sites like AW, and because professionally I have to acknowledge that Excel sucks, this is a dead end career!

Project management is great because projects always fail (so low expectations) and project managers earn lots of money. What could be better than that?

Alastair - I must have been doing something wrong these last 15 years. :) But then I don't pretend to live on the same planet as anyone else. And - I don't believe in competition. I believe in differentiation. An important but subtle difference.

Hi Emily. I believe training is a lucrative market but you would have to specialise. IT sounds like fun but too much competition. "Management" and technical stuff like tax, IFRS, etc, etc is more lucrative, and where properly played your ACA can give a competitive advantage.

software consultancy is a mugs game. Better to get into project management (but work for one of the big players if you want to earn big bucks) or software development (does not pay well but loads of fun!)

"CAs have to specialise if they're to give of their best"?

Couldn't agree more. I've spoken to a couple of colleagues who were sole practitioners in a previous incarnation and they say they wouldn't do that now - there's just too much to keep up to speed with.

Is there also a place for a CA to specialise in software consultancy and training, anyone reckon?

M

I always thought the reason for an engagement letter was to fomalise who does what and gives the client as well as the accountants protection from each other.

Therefore, the engagement letter is for the benefit of both parties and I know our letters give the client as much protection as they give us, i.e. they clearly state who does what.

Maybe the difference is, i acutally go through the engagement letter first time round with clients, boring yes, but I have nothing to hide and before they put pen to paper I want them to understand what they are signing.

Previous post:

Next post: