Professional Tax Advice
- Thread starter cookie
- Start date
Well as you specifically asked, ubiquitous gives excellent tax advice on AAM, he (she) is an accountant and might be able to help you, search using his name - and I say this as someone who doesn't always agree with him
Unless the person (Accoutant or not) giving tax advice is AITI qualified () then take any advise with a pinch of salt!
Well as you specifically asked, ubiquitous gives excellent tax advice on AAM, he (she) is an accountant and might be able to help you, search using his name - and I say this as someone who doesn't always agree with him
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Codswallop. The majority of reputable accountants and tax advisors operating is this country are not AITI qualified.
For some reason a succession of posters (several of whom have been banned by the mods and appear to be the same person using different aliases) have peddled a similar lie on AAM recently. Its odd that you now join the list
Agreed.
For some reason a succession of posters (several of whom have been banned by the mods and appear to be the same person using different aliases) have peddled a similar lie on AAM recently.
Slightly off topic I know but is it possible for mods to determine if someone using different AAM usernames is actually coming from the same address? If so then that would help "weed out" such situations.
I think the OP was looking for a "tax consultant". Given that we don't know the nature of the query, only that it relates to "rental property" then surely we should recommend "tax consultants" to Cookie. There may be specific issues surrounding this that not all accountants can cover. If it is just a rental computation and tax return, then you don't have to be a tax consultant to do this. But quote was as follows:
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
eurotom was asked (quite nicely) to name the consultant he recommends but he declined to do so.
There is no legal or other requirement for a tax consultant to be an AITI member. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
There is no legal or other requirement for a tax consultant to be an AITI member. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Ubiquitous - What is your definition of a tax consultant and what qualifications should that person have in your opinion?
My decision not to name any company on this forum has been well founded given the way this thread has gone!
Codswallop. The majority of reputable accountants and tax advisors operating is this country are not AITI qualified.
For some reason a succession of posters (several of whom have been banned by the mods and appear to be the same person using different aliases) have peddled a similar lie on AAM recently. Its odd that you now join the list
Codswallop indeed...but I've done some research over the last number of weeks and got talking to a senior member of ACCA who says that most of it's members only have rudimentrary tax schooling and AITA members (some of which are accountants) are best placed to give tax advice.
Codswallop. The majority of reputable accountants and tax advisors operating is this country are not AITI qualified.
For some reason a succession of posters (several of whom have been banned by the mods and appear to be the same person using different aliases) have peddled a similar lie on AAM recently. Its odd that you now join the list
What exactly are you trying to imply here?...play the ball and not the man for the sake of the debate please
Yes good point, I'd be very interested to see the answer to that one!
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
A tax consultant is someone who describes themselves as such - there is no legal basis for the term. Most so-called "tax consultants" have no qualifications whatsoever, some actually double up as auctioneers, mortgage agents and overseas property salesmen!
Reminds me of one particular guy with a national media profile who describes himself as a tax consultant, and who has been described as such by others in the media, despite the fact that he has neither a tax nor an accountancy qualification to his name, and also the fact that his work is regulated by neither the ITI nor any of the accountancy institutes, nor anyone else.
The same guy was asked in a public forum some years ago for his view on the effects of technology on accounting and replied with the immortal comment "double entry bookkeeping is a thing of the past".
Reminds me of one particular guy with a national media profile who describes himself as a tax consultant, and who has been described as such by others in the media, despite the fact that he has neither a tax nor an accountancy qualification to his name, and also the fact that his work is regulated by neither the ITI nor any of the accountancy institutes, nor anyone else.
The same guy was asked in a public forum some years ago for his view on the effects of technology on accounting and replied with the immortal comment "double entry bookkeeping is a thing of the past".
M
Mark_Mc
Guest
Let me posit a question to all those who have made posts to this thread.
If there is a perception out there that being AITI qualified carries no value (that's what I take from some of the posts in this thread at least) then why is it that, when accountancy firms are hiring to fill tax positions, the main requirment is to be AITI qualified?
These reputable people? Do they do the tax work themselves or get an AITI qualified person who has the indepth legislative knowledge to do it for them and then pass it off as their own? Speaking from personal experience that is what happens but because most of the Irish public say "speak to your "accountant" [they don't understand the distinction between a qualified accountant and qualified AITI] when it comes to tax advice" the AITI qualified person doesn't get a look in. The ordinary joe soap doesn't know exactly what the AITI qualification entails but the accountants who hire them do so that says alot!!
Perhaps there should be a legal requirement on the use of that phrase making it a legal pre-requisite to have the AITI qualification (just like it is for solicitors) to claim to be a tax consultant as those who are currently AITI qualified would have protection. That probably won't happen though as there are "accountants" (not AITI's) in government so why would they change the regime?
Who would they be?
Note this is not meant to be interpreted as targetting one member over another. It is simply meant to stir debate.
If there is a perception out there that being AITI qualified carries no value (that's what I take from some of the posts in this thread at least) then why is it that, when accountancy firms are hiring to fill tax positions, the main requirment is to be AITI qualified?
These reputable people? Do they do the tax work themselves or get an AITI qualified person who has the indepth legislative knowledge to do it for them and then pass it off as their own? Speaking from personal experience that is what happens but because most of the Irish public say "speak to your "accountant" [they don't understand the distinction between a qualified accountant and qualified AITI] when it comes to tax advice" the AITI qualified person doesn't get a look in. The ordinary joe soap doesn't know exactly what the AITI qualification entails but the accountants who hire them do so that says alot!!
Perhaps there should be a legal requirement on the use of that phrase making it a legal pre-requisite to have the AITI qualification (just like it is for solicitors) to claim to be a tax consultant as those who are currently AITI qualified would have protection. That probably won't happen though as there are "accountants" (not AITI's) in government so why would they change the regime?
For some reason a succession of posters (several of whom have been banned by the mods and appear to be the same person using different aliases) have peddled a similar lie on AAM recently. Its odd that you now join the list
Who would they be?
Note this is not meant to be interpreted as targetting one member over another. It is simply meant to stir debate.
Most Accountants who are not AITI qualified or do not specialise in tax will only answer the most very basic questions. What they do then is ring or write to their own specialist tax advisor. Client gets a bigger bill because they now not only have the specialists advisor fees, but the Accountants "cut" on top of it. I have seen the most basic tax queries come in from some Accountants who just do not want to get involved with Tax and tell their clients from the get go that they are seeking the specialist advice.
Sometimes even tax consultants seek specialist legal opinions, or in some cases VAT specialist advices for certain projects.
The bigger accountants are now starting to see the benefit of their own tax departments with qualified people. There is not enough work for the smaller Accountant's offices to justify this and for the most part, the work is still farmed out. I would not think that they pass the work off as their own, but rather outline to the client that they had to seek specialist tax advices.
Sometimes even tax consultants seek specialist legal opinions, or in some cases VAT specialist advices for certain projects.
The bigger accountants are now starting to see the benefit of their own tax departments with qualified people. There is not enough work for the smaller Accountant's offices to justify this and for the most part, the work is still farmed out. I would not think that they pass the work off as their own, but rather outline to the client that they had to seek specialist tax advices.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Have you any evidence to support this assertion, particularly in relation to your use of the word "most". If an accountant can only answer "the most very basic"
tax questions asked by their clients, they will not last long in business. (Nor will they make any money, given the kind of fees that tax consultants charge for queries) Do you take their clients for fools?
You mentioned previously that you work in a legal firm. Don't tell me that your firm never, ever sources specialist expertise from outside the firm, eg barristers.
Doesn't that undermine your previous point.
Now starting to... ? That's odd. I trained in a Top 20 firm in the 1980's and they had their own tax department even then.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Who said that? Only an idiot would make such a suggestion
If your own business has a marketing or branding problem, its up to you to address this. It won't be solved by blaming others.
All the accountancy institutes are lobbying the government at present for legal protection of the term accountant, and seeking to restrict the work that can be done by unqualified or unregulated accountants. Afaik, the ITI are doing the same in respect of tax advisors. I actually don't agree with these proposals, as reputable professionals will always prosper once they provide quality services to the public, regardless of their qualifications or lack thereof. (I'm an ICAI member myself)
Btw, I am almost certain there are no ICAI, CPA, ACCA or ITI members in the Government. If I'm wrong perhaps you can name those concerned.
M
Mark_Mc
Guest
Marketing and branding costs money and sometimes alot of it and some of us are not fortunate enough to have silver spoon families in the background who might support you when in start up phase.
It costs alot of money to inform the public of your existence and service offering and sometimes that can be prohibitive. You see it yourself on this site when posters say (in the context of tax queries) "contact an accountant" that's what specialist operating tax consultants who are AITI qualified are up against. I keep saying this and am ignored but I am speaking from personal experience.
Tax Consultancy is a niche service and generally only a requirement of the very well off but everyone should use the services of someone specifically tax qualified at some point even just for will planning etc. However, the majority of people often don't realise their own requirements when it comes to tax because they don't have enough information to hand to spot the problem that needs solving. Then when they mention it in the pub it's "speak to an accountant" (the accountant uses the AITI who, in many cases, may not even be known to the taxpayer). That's how it works in services - people afraid of losing clients to someone who just might be able to provide what the client wants directly (and at a better standard) rather than through them.
It's also about having a network of access into the more wealthy in society and if we all had that we'd all be wealthy ourselves.
With professional services (intellectual based) it's always a question of who you know not what you know because if you know a wide network of well off people willing to pay for tax services then you can just act as a filter for the advice and seek it from AITI's. That's how it functions.
Why do you always refer to people who hold genuinely held views that have been formed through direct experience as idiots? Perhaps the mods should intervene regarding this use of "idiot"?
Nobody is blaming others here. It's simply a description of the facts. You're only putting words in my mouth now.
Personally I would agree with legal protection for the various professions just like the solicitors have. I mean I have not studied general law like a solicitor so I can't turn around in a pub and say "I am a solicitor" so why should someone not AITI have the entitlement to be able to turn around in a pub and say I am a tax advisor or interchangeably the phrase "tax consultant"?
Certainly if an accountant is not AITI qualified do you not think that just like in the case of solicitors they should not be able to promote themselves as "authorities" (i.e. as tax advisors) on tax to their clients?
Perhaps they may not be ICAI, CPA, ACCA et al (there's 3 solicitors at least - 1 in Finance) but you can be sure they are connected to alot of professionals (more than likely in well heeled and looked upon as powerful people) many of whom may be personal friends so those in government are unlikely to rock the boat for those friends who may also be donaters to election funds.
It's just common sense really that sometimes people don't want to change the status quo.
It costs alot of money to inform the public of your existence and service offering and sometimes that can be prohibitive. You see it yourself on this site when posters say (in the context of tax queries) "contact an accountant" that's what specialist operating tax consultants who are AITI qualified are up against. I keep saying this and am ignored but I am speaking from personal experience.
Tax Consultancy is a niche service and generally only a requirement of the very well off but everyone should use the services of someone specifically tax qualified at some point even just for will planning etc. However, the majority of people often don't realise their own requirements when it comes to tax because they don't have enough information to hand to spot the problem that needs solving. Then when they mention it in the pub it's "speak to an accountant" (the accountant uses the AITI who, in many cases, may not even be known to the taxpayer). That's how it works in services - people afraid of losing clients to someone who just might be able to provide what the client wants directly (and at a better standard) rather than through them.
It's also about having a network of access into the more wealthy in society and if we all had that we'd all be wealthy ourselves.
With professional services (intellectual based) it's always a question of who you know not what you know because if you know a wide network of well off people willing to pay for tax services then you can just act as a filter for the advice and seek it from AITI's. That's how it functions.
Why do you always refer to people who hold genuinely held views that have been formed through direct experience as idiots? Perhaps the mods should intervene regarding this use of "idiot"?
Nobody is blaming others here. It's simply a description of the facts. You're only putting words in my mouth now.
Personally I would agree with legal protection for the various professions just like the solicitors have. I mean I have not studied general law like a solicitor so I can't turn around in a pub and say "I am a solicitor" so why should someone not AITI have the entitlement to be able to turn around in a pub and say I am a tax advisor or interchangeably the phrase "tax consultant"?
Certainly if an accountant is not AITI qualified do you not think that just like in the case of solicitors they should not be able to promote themselves as "authorities" (i.e. as tax advisors) on tax to their clients?
I'd be exposing myself to lible to name someone. I am not that naive as to do that. Does it not concern you that the government does not have an ACA, CPA, ACCA ITI member part of their person. Particularly for the economic ministeries?Btw, I am almost certain there are no ICAI, CPA, ACCA or ITI members in the Government. If I'm wrong perhaps you can name those concerned.
Perhaps they may not be ICAI, CPA, ACCA et al (there's 3 solicitors at least - 1 in Finance) but you can be sure they are connected to alot of professionals (more than likely in well heeled and looked upon as powerful people) many of whom may be personal friends so those in government are unlikely to rock the boat for those friends who may also be donaters to election funds.
It's just common sense really that sometimes people don't want to change the status quo.
No I work in very specialised "boutique" tax practice and am only outlining my own experiences of the queries that come in. Can't comment on Top 20 Accoutancy Firms, but many of our clients - mid level Accountancy practices based countrywide are only now looking at recruiting qualified tax people.
I agree with a lot of Mark Mc's comments.