# accountant quote for tax return



## Tastebuds (30 Aug 2016)

I have been quoted by the accountant 400EUR +VAT to do my tax return this year.

I only have to do a CGT return of the disposal of some shares in 2015
and
income tax return for some income on the side of my full time employee job

400EUR +VAT seems expensive. Is not it?
I am tempted to give it a go myself and try to save the money, but the first time is a bit intimidating. Are there accountants that would review your "self made" tax return before submission for a more humble fee?

Thanks


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Aug 2016)

Frankly I am surprised that any accountant would open a file for a new customer for €400. 

Brendan


----------



## Protocol (30 Aug 2016)

Yes, it is expensive.

Most or all "professional" fees in Ireland are expensive - we have among the highest legal and medical fees in the world.

There is no need for an accountant unless your case is complex, which it doesn't seem to be.

Just register online and complete Form 11 or Form 12 tax return.


----------



## mf1 (30 Aug 2016)

"Are there accountants that would review your "self made" tax return before submission for a more humble fee?"

This is called "Can I run something by you? I don't want to pay you a professional fee but I do want to be able to blame/sue you if you get it wrong!"

mf


----------



## T McGibney (30 Aug 2016)

Tastebuds said:


> Are there accountants that would review your "self made" tax return before submission for a more humble fee?



"I'm not willing to pay the going rate to do the job, but if I throw someone a few quid, they can fix all my mistakes and if they miss anything I can sue them."


----------



## Steven Barrett (30 Aug 2016)

Nope, that's not expensive. 

You can get it done properly for a fee or maybe do it right yourself for free. 

Straightforward tax returns aren't difficult and the online system is pretty good. 

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## T McGibney (30 Aug 2016)

Protocol said:


> Yes, it is expensive.
> 
> Most or all "professional" fees in Ireland are expensive - we have among the highest legal and medical fees in the world.



You gotta love the old "accountancy (an open profession) fees are expensive because of legal and medical (each closed professions) fees" canard.


----------



## noproblem (30 Aug 2016)

SBarrett said:


> Nope, that's not expensive.
> 
> You can get it done properly for a fee or maybe do it right yourself for free.
> 
> ...


 "Properly for a fee"
Properly, as in the way the accounts were signed off for Anglo?


----------



## T McGibney (30 Aug 2016)

noproblem said:


> "Properly for a fee"
> Properly, as in the way the accounts were signed off for Anglo?


----------



## mf1 (30 Aug 2016)

noproblem said:


> "Properly for a fee"
> Properly, as in the way the accounts were signed off for Anglo?



No, really, what has this comment got to do with the subject matter?

mf


----------



## Monbretia (30 Aug 2016)

I don't really agree with the 'can I run something by you' comment being necessarily unpaid.  I do my own accounts, small fry, very simple but I wanted to make sure I was doing it right.  I asked an accountant how much for an hour of his time, we agreed a figure and for that hour I showed him what I was doing and asked any questions I wanted, I was never going to hire him to do every year, I just wanted basically an accounting grind.   

Sure he got an hour's pay, I got answers, worth asking one.


----------



## T McGibney (30 Aug 2016)

Monbretia said:


> I don't really agree with the 'can I run something by you' comment being necessarily unpaid.



Except nobody mentioned that.


----------



## Monbretia (30 Aug 2016)

mf1 said:


> This is called "Can I run something by you? I don't want to pay you a professional fee but I do want to be able to blame/sue you if you get it wrong!"



Not word for word maybe but pretty much the gist of it.


----------



## T McGibney (30 Aug 2016)

You used the word necessarily...


----------



## Steven Barrett (30 Aug 2016)

noproblem said:


> "Properly for a fee"
> Properly, as in the way the accounts were signed off for Anglo?



A very selective sample size. What about the thousands of other company accounts audited every year in Ireland?


----------



## cremeegg (30 Aug 2016)

SBarrett said:


> A very selective sample size. What about the thousands of other company accounts audited every year in Ireland?



What about them ?

How does anyone know what errors they may or may not contain, it is only when a company goes bankrupt and there is an investigation carried out that audit mistakes are brought to light.

The debacle that is the Anglo accounts, let us remind ourselves, the accounts materially overstated the deposit base (by €7 billion), the auditors failed to identify this.

This failure undermines, or at least should undermine, confidence in all audited accounts. Of course the audit profession shrugs its collective shoulders and carries on. The public don't care, even though it cost the taxpayer, €30 billion afaik, and we will act all shocked again the next time.


----------



## noproblem (30 Aug 2016)

SBarrett said:


> A very selective sample size. What about the thousands of other company accounts audited every year in Ireland?


Selective? Oh yes and for very good reason. Our goverment should have made certain that those responsible for those audits be held to account. Do you disagree with that? Anyway, it's going slightly off topic, but i've made my point about TRUST.


----------



## Steven Barrett (30 Aug 2016)

Choosie


cremeegg said:


> What about them ?
> 
> *How does anyone know what errors they may or may not contain*, it is only when a company goes bankrupt and there is an investigation carried out that audit mistakes are brought to light.
> 
> ...



Companies are audited by the revenue on a regular basis. Accountants are audited by their regulator on a regular basis. If company audits are full of holes all the time, it would come to light. 

There will always be cases where an audit is not done properly but to question a whole profession on the back of just one example is incorrect.  


Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## cremeegg (30 Aug 2016)

SBarrett said:


> Choosie



??



SBarrett said:


> Companies are audited by the revenue on a regular basis.






SBarrett said:


> If company audits are full of holes all the time, it would come to light.



A revenue audit for tax purposes is not at all the same thing as a statutory audit of the financial statements. Where Revenue does identify "holes", (good word, images of €€€ draining away), they would have no role in bringing them to public attention. Do we have any idea how many Revenue audits result in a restatement of the tax payable ?



SBarrett said:


> Accountants are audited by their regulator on a regular basis.



Are they ? I thought it was their professional boddies, (another good word).




SBarrett said:


> There will always be cases where an audit is not done properly but to question a whole profession on the back of just one example is incorrect.



Where there are little or no sanctions when audits are not done properly, there will continue to be issues.


----------



## T McGibney (31 Aug 2016)

cremeegg said:


> A revenue audit for tax purposes is not at all the same thing as a statutory audit of the financial statements. Where Revenue does identify "holes", (good word, images of €€€ draining away), they would have no role in bringing them to public attention. Do we have any idea how many Revenue audits result in a restatement of the tax payable ?



Er, Revenue audit settlements are published in the quarterly tax defaulters lists.



cremeegg said:


> Are they ? I thought it was their professional boddies, (another good word).


https://www.iaasa.ie/



cremeegg said:


> Where there are little or no sanctions when audits are not done properly.



Ahem.
https://www.iaasa.ie/


Anyway all of this is off topic.  Anytime anyone asks a question about accounting services or prices, the same few posters chime in with uninformed & prejudiced ranting about Anglo auditing and self-regulation. At least this time, the OP got 6 responses before the rubbish started. Getting more than a tad boring at this point.


----------



## noproblem (31 Aug 2016)

"the same few posters chime in with uninformed & prejudiced ranting about Anglo auditing and self-regulation".

I can assure you my dear man that the above analysis is based on a very, very, very, uninformed self righteous opinion.    End of.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Aug 2016)

Im sorry if you are bored. I can understand it must be trying having to read so much "uninformed & prejudiced ranting". However for those that might be interested.



T McGibney said:


> Er, Revenue audit settlements are published in the quarterly tax defaulters lists.



The tax defaulters list is a,

"List compiled pursuant to Section 1086, Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997...... of every person upon whom a fine or other penalty was imposed by a Court. "

Not a list of cases where auditors made errors.


As for regulation and supervision of audits, there has been a welcome and very recent move away from self regulation. Let us hope that this will lead to a much needed improvement in standards, and no further cases where a €7 billion balance sheet support operation is missed.

"As part of the recent European audit reform measures, including in particular Regulation 537/2014(‘the Regulation’), with effect from *17 June 2016* IAASA will assume responsibility for inspecting the quality of audit work performed by the auditors of Public Interest Entities (‘PIEs’).  The reforms will lead to a number of changes in the regulation and supervision of audits, including the transfer of responsibility for the quality assurance of auditors of PIEs from the RABs to IAASA. In order to prepare for this transfer, IAASA has set up an Audit Inspections Unit (‘AIU’). The AIU’s overall objective is to  inspect PIE auditors’ work and to promote improvements in the quality of auditing of PIEs.
https://www.iaasa.ie/

It is unfortunate that this reform is limited to PIEs and does not apply more generally.


----------



## T McGibney (31 Aug 2016)

cremeegg said:


> The tax defaulters list is a,
> 
> "List compiled pursuant to Section 1086, Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997...... of every person upon whom a fine or other penalty was imposed by a Court. "



No it's not - the list of court-imposed sanctions forms only part of the regular quarterly lists of tax defaulters.

This basic error exemplifies the "uninformed & prejudiced ranting" which I referenced above.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Aug 2016)

T McGibney said:


> No it's not - the list of court-imposed sanctions forms only part of the regular quarterly lists of tax defaulters.
> 
> This basic error exemplifies the "uninformed & prejudiced ranting" which I referenced above.



Maybe its not, maybe you are right and I am wrong, but my quotation is taken from the actual list itself, you can view it here.

[broken link removed]


----------



## T McGibney (31 Aug 2016)

Did you notice that there are two parts to that list, or are you just trolling?


----------



## cremeegg (31 Aug 2016)

I didn't notice that, thank you for pointing it out.

The second part is a list

_"OF PERSONS – in whose case the Revenue Commissioners accepted a settlement of the kind mentioned in Section 1086. The list also includes cases in which a Penalty Determination was made by the Courts in respect of the same period.  "_

Nothing to do with reporting on the adequacy or otherwise of the work of auditors of financial accounts.


The list is compiled under ""


_(2) The Revenue Commissioners shall, as respects each relevant period (being the period beginning on the 1st day of January, 1997, and ending on the 30th day of June, 1997, and each subsequent period of 3 months beginning with the period ending on the 30th day of September, 1997), compile a list of the names and addresses and the occupations or descriptions of every person—

(a) on whom a fine or other penalty was imposed by a court under any of the Acts during that relevant period,

(b) on whom a fine or other penalty was otherwise imposed by a court during that relevant period in respect of an act or omission by the person in relation to tax, or

(c) in whose case the Revenue Commissioners, pursuant to an agreement made with the person in that relevant period, refrained from initiating proceedings for the recovery of any fine or penalty of the kind mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) and, in place of initiating such proceedings, accepted or undertook to accept a specified sum of money in settlement of any claim by the Revenue Commissioners in respect of any specified liability of the person under any of the Acts for—

(i) payment of any tax,

(ii) payment of interest on that tax, and

(iii) a fine or other monetary penalty in respect of that tax._

see here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/39/section/1086/enacted/en/html

Still nothing to do with reporting on the adequacy or otherwise of the work of auditors of financial accounts.

Now I'm getting bored. I have made my point to the best of my ability and patience, readers if there are any, can judge it as they will.


----------



## T McGibney (31 Aug 2016)

cremeegg said:


> I didn't notice that, thank you for pointing it out.
> 
> The second part is a list
> 
> ...



Accepted, but still neatly skewers the contention and answers the question you pose here:



cremeegg said:


> A revenue audit for tax purposes is not at all the same thing as a statutory audit of the financial statements. Where Revenue does identify "holes", (good word, images of €€€ draining away), they would have no role in bringing them to public attention. Do we have any idea how many Revenue audits result in a restatement of the tax payable ?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (31 Aug 2016)

Tastebuds said:


> I have been quoted by the accountant 400EUR +VAT to do my tax return this year.
> 
> I only have to do a CGT return of the disposal of some shares in 2015
> and
> ...



Bringing the discussion back to the original query, €400 plus VAT is not expensive. If you're paying income tax and USC at the higher rates, it's worth noting that the cost to you would be €236. I paid a babysitter half that recently for a night out. We're talking about professional advice and assistance where the client can come after you if you make an error. Nickel and diming in respect of professional advice is an awful idea.


----------



## Tastebuds (15 Sep 2016)

Thanks to you all for your replies...
and I am so sorry that I missed all of your replies until now. I had email notifications turned off by mistake for this thread so I assumed there was no activity...   I feel really embarrassed...




Gordon Gekko said:


> Bringing the discussion back to the original query, €400 plus VAT is not expensive. If you're paying income tax and USC at the higher rates, it's worth noting that the cost to you would be €236. I paid a babysitter half that recently for a night out. We're talking about professional advice and assistance where the client can come after you if you make an error. Nickel and diming in respect of professional advice is an awful idea.



Is this because you can deduct the accountant fees from the tax return?


----------



## Tastebuds (15 Sep 2016)

Monbretia said:


> I don't really agree with the 'can I run something by you' comment being necessarily unpaid.  I do my own accounts, small fry, very simple but I wanted to make sure I was doing it right.  I asked an accountant how much for an hour of his time, we agreed a figure and for that hour I showed him what I was doing and asked any questions I wanted, I was never going to hire him to do every year, I just wanted basically an accounting grind.
> 
> Sure he got an hour's pay, I got answers, worth asking one.



That is a good idea. You pay for the time spent using their "consultancy" services

It would probably be a good idea to learn how to do the tax return anyway. I am investing in US ETFs that will involve declaration of dividends every year, which I guess it will be quite systematic once I know how to do it


----------



## noproblem (15 Sep 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Bringing the discussion back to the original query, €400 plus VAT is not expensive. If you're paying income tax and USC at the higher rates, it's worth noting that the cost to you would be €236. I paid a babysitter half that recently for a night out. We're talking about professional advice and assistance where the client can come after you if you make an error. Nickel and diming in respect of professional advice is an awful idea.




They must be queueing up outside your house to babysit.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Sep 2016)

Tastebuds said:


> Thanks to you all for your replies...
> and I am so sorry that I missed all of your replies until now. I had email notifications turned off by mistake for this thread so I assumed there was no activity...   I feel really embarrassed...
> 
> 
> ...



Yes


----------

