Should the term ‘accountant’ be legally defined?

I have an alternative view borne of many discussions with members of the public in connection with my Tax Advice Network which provides a support service for accountants. I quickly realised that that most non-accountants assume that all accountants are tax advisers as the words are thought to be synonymous.

Why does anyone, other than company directors, typically appoint an accountant? Does the client really care about their accounts? Or are they more interested in obtaining help and advice as regards their tax returns and tax planning? Private investors, the retired and many other clients do not even have accounts in the conventional sense. Yet still the majority of such taxpayers turn to accountants for help. With apologies to the Chartered Institute of Taxation (of which I am proud to be a Fellow), the concept of a ‘Tax Adviser’ as distinct from an ‘Accountant’ has yet to enter the public consciousness.

Even if only qualified accountants could describe themselves as such, it is inconceivable, in my view, that only they would be permitted to provide tax return completion services and tax advice. For me to be wrong on this would mean that Chartered Tax Advisers (“CTAs”), to take just one example, would be precluded from practicing their profession. That’s a fanciful idea that will obviously never happen. There is equally no prospect of CTAs agreeing to be described as Accountants.

Instead, the public would quickly become much more familiar with the distinction between an Accountant and a Tax Adviser than is presently the case. And given the choice between a specialist in preparing accounts and one specialised in advising on tax, which will they choose to appoint?

I am in no doubt that attempts to distinguish qualified and unqualified accountants will increase awareness of the difference between accountants and tax advisers. And if that happens I fear that qualified accountants would lose more than they gain.

@Damien - that's an excellent point but one worth the debate don't you think? Especially as I said given the parlous state of the industry as a whole and its tattered reputation. Sometimes, seismic change needs to occur and I'm thinking this is one of those times when the profession could do itself a massive favour by biting the bullet.

I hate to bring up the word 'merger' again. But it's unavoidable. Protecting the term 'accountant' (which may be desirable) would be fraught with difficulties.
How do you define it? You would presumably adopt an existing one. But even if you just pick a UK definition (which would be difficult given the international mobility of professionals) would you pick the CCAB definition of six institutes? Would you incorporate the Companies Act which would effectively add in another? Is it all institutes - of which there are many?
Protection requires rationalisation.

Hmm... not sure about this one.

On the one hand I think a level of protection has to be a good wheeze if it's going to stop people who have little or no knowledge calling themselves "accountants" and bamboozling clients.

But on the other hand, one guy I used to work for was unqualified and he is an excellent accountant. He just had bad luck and got timebarred when he was doing his exams.

And as Phil said, if someone presents themselves to a potential client as qualified, the client does have the means to check it out - ask to see a certificate, etc. Mind you, much good a certificate would do me 'cos mine's in my maiden name :-)

On balance though, I think I'm still in favour of protecting the term "accountant". If the term "solicitor" is protected then so should "accountant" be.

M

Proposals like this make me nervous.

Whenever something is proposed by a trade group for the greater good of the public, I get deeply suspicious that it might in fact be for the benefit of the trade group.

Speaking for myself (licensed lawyer in California) I think the licensing requirements create a thinly disguised labor union designed to protect members' wages, to the detriment of everyone else.

I would not impose regulations that apply to 100% of the population of practitioners, all in an effort to deal with the few individuals who are 4 standard deviations to the right.

Also, let's allow grown-ups to be grown-ups. You (the hypothetical victim) make a mistake (hire an incompetent person who happens to utter the word "accountant")? Maybe you should feel the pain, thus improving your judgment next time. You are a sentient being capable of learning from environmental feed-back. And I believe we already have plenty of ways for you to claim recompense for your damage if necessary.

OK. I could rant on and on for hours about the State of the World where a Perceived Evil Must Be Dealt With By Strict Legislation. It's just silly to layer on law after regulation after pronouncement, because the Government Knows Best.

(But I won't.)