Showing posts with label Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Council. Show all posts

Friday, November 13, 2020

Nominate Elaine Clark For The ICAEW Council


 

My Twitter chum, and fellow member of the ICAEW, Elaine Clark is standing for election to the ICAEW Council in the North West. 

I wish her all the best, and would ask any members in the North West to sign her nomination papers; as she will be a force for good.

Elaine has correctly called out the absurdity of the ICAEW's regional (and indeed international) council structure that not only prevents members from one region nominating members from another, but also does not have space for a "cyberspace" council member.

 

In 2007 I noted the following:

"Why does the ICAEW claim to be international, yet council elections are decided on a local basis?

Why does the ICAEW insist on prospective candidates for council needing 10 signatures from the local area, before they are even allowed to stand?

Why does the ICAEW need 90, or more, council members?

Operating a Victorian trading association model simply will not do for the 21st century.

Until the ICAEW gets that point it will go nowhere."

In fact in 2007 I tried to stand for council, but couldn't get the nominations because the ICAEW wouldn't tell anyone in Croydon (where I was living at the time) that I was standing. 

Therefore please nominate Elaine, as she might actually achieve what I failed to achieve!

Tax Investigation Insurance

Having a Solar Protect Tax Investigation Insurance policy at your disposal means that should you be one of the many 1000's of businesses or individuals that are selected by HMRC each year to look into your tax affairs your own accountant (your tax return agent) can get on and defend you robustly.

You have the peace of mind knowing that your accountant's (your tax return agent) fees will be paid by the insurance without any Excess for you to find.

Tax Investigation Insurance is an insurance policy that will fully reimburse your accountants (your tax return agent) fees up to £100,000 if you are subject to enquiry by or dispute with HMRC.

A Solar Protect policy will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to:
  • Deal with any correspondence from HMRC
  • Attend any meeting with HMRC
  • Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal
  • Having the security of knowing that fees will be met in full will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to defend your position robustly
  • Premiums are Annual Premiums.
  • Premiums are inclusive of 12% IPT. 
  • Premiums and IPT are due in full in advance / at commencement of scheme.
  • There is a NIL excess on all policies.

Please click here for details.

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Council Elections

 

Council elections

Nominations for Elections to Council will open on 12 November 2020 at 12 Noon (GMT) and close on 14 December 2020 at 12 Noon (GMT)

Please ensure your constituency details are up to date by the 16 October 2020 via your ‘My Profile’ tab. 

View the Council constituency vacancies 

 

Tax Investigation Insurance

Having a Solar Protect Tax Investigation Insurance policy at your disposal means that should you be one of the many 1000's of businesses or individuals that are selected by HMRC each year to look into your tax affairs your own accountant (your tax return agent) can get on and defend you robustly.

You have the peace of mind knowing that your accountant's (your tax return agent) fees will be paid by the insurance without any Excess for you to find.

Tax Investigation Insurance is an insurance policy that will fully reimburse your accountants (your tax return agent) fees up to £100,000 if you are subject to enquiry by or dispute with HMRC.

A Solar Protect policy will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to:

  • Deal with any correspondence from HMRC
  • Attend any meeting with HMRC
  • Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal
  • Having the security of knowing that fees will be met in full will enable your Accountant (your tax return agent) to defend your position robustly
  • Premiums are Annual Premiums.
  • Premiums are inclusive of 12% IPT. 
  • Premiums and IPT are due in full in advance / at commencement of scheme.
  • There is a NIL excess on all policies.

Please click here for details.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

ICAEW Council Elections


Those of you who wish to vote in the ICAEW Council elections need to be aware that:

Voting closes at 12:00 BST on 2 May.

Candidate statements can be downloaded via this link.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Friday, April 17, 2015

Communications Glitch

It appears that not everyone has received notification about the ICAEW council elections.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Council Elections

The ICAEW is holding elections for Council, the deadline for votes is midday 5 May.

Those of you who wish to read the candidates' statements can do via via this link candidate statements.

With regard to the constituencyy of Oceania, Christie Malry has a pertinent obseravtion:


Tuesday, January 20, 2015

The Emperor's New Clothes



As loyal readers know, I have often likened the ICAEW to a Victorian trading association (given its overpopulated council and the absurdly out of date rules for standing for election to council etc).

Yesterday the ICAEW and its member subsidised media organ economia managed to raise the bar on "Victoriana", with regard to a prize offered for completing a survey about the economia app.

The prize in question was a bespoke suit (up to the value of £1K) crafted by a London based tailors. So far so good, except that as Elaine Clark (British Accountancy Awards winner 2014) pointed out the tailors only make suits for men!

Errm, does the ICAEW not realise there are women accountants?

When Elaine raised the issue on Facebook and Twitter with economia/ICAEW, she was told that the tailors would make a suit for a woman (except that when she called the tailors, they said they don't make women's suits).

Economia then dug itself further into the hole of its own creation by calling Elaine, and asking her to remove her comments from Twitter etc.

I dare say some face saving amendment to the prize rules will now be made. However, the damage is done.

Once a brand is damaged it is very hard to undo that damage. The ICAEW should have learned that lesson a few years ago, when they tried to merge with Cipfa!

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Results of Bungled Elections

In May this year the ICAEW bungled the elections to council, and were forced to re-run the elections in S Essex, London, Manchester and N-W England.

The results of the re-run of the London elections can be seen via this link.

Friday, May 10, 2013

ICAEW Council Elections Bungled


My thanks to Christie Malry for pointing me to his post about the bungled ICAEW council elections.

As per Julia Penny:
"Thanks for everyone who voted for me in #ICAEW Council elections. Unfortunately looks like the vote needs to be re-run though."
Well done lads!

I am surprised that the ICAEW screwed this up, they have been so fastidious in the past wrt ensuring that things are run according to their rules; as I discovered 11 Jan 2007 when I tried to stand:
"My thanks to The Times, which has come out in support of my candidacy for the ICAEW Council elections:

"Ken Frost has found one Croydon accountant, so it’s nine to go. As I wrote the other day, Frost, a long-standing critic of the accountants’ professional body in England and Wales, wants to stand in elections to its council. But according to the peculiar rules of the ICAEW, he needs ten nominations first from members of his local association. One has come forward, he tells me, and I may be able to put him in touch with another, if Herne Hill in South London is deemed sufficiently local. The ICAEW insists the rules must be observed in all cases. Frost must run!"
Also as per 13 Jan 2007:
"In November the ICAEW wrote to all members, informing them that Croydon had no representation from members "not in practice".

"Election to the vacancy will therefore be 'assured' for a member not in practice provided one or more such candidates come forward..."

Election procedure 18 states:

"To redress the under-representation on Council of members not in practice and, in particular, of members in business, the Council has agreed that, for the years 1995-2007 inclusive, it will 'assure' one seat per constituency for a member not in practice..."

Well, I am not in practice, and I am in business. I offered to stand, and advised the ICAEW as such; but noted that although I know many ICAEW members nationally who would sign my nomination, I knew no one in Croydon.

Despite this, they refused to notify members of my wish to stand.

Given that they could not have possibly known, before nominations were in, as to whether there would have been a non practising member standing, and given that they were asking for non practising members to stand, I wonder why they did not help me inform the members of my wish to stand?
"
Regarding the 2013 shambles, please can someone let me know what the problem was, and how much a re-run will cost?

Thanks.

UPDATE

As per Taxation:
"An ICAEW spokeperson told Taxation there had been errors in some nominations across four constituencies: London, Manchester, the North West and Essex. They were not spotted until after the election, when it was decided that the fairest solution would be to rerun the elections.

The move could mean the candidates who won on Tuesday lose their newly gained places unless the losing candidates agree to stand down and allow the victors to be returned unopposed. Candidates will have to get their vote out for a second time if their election is contested."
FURTHER UPDATE

As per ICAEW on Twitter:
"ICAEW to re-run elections in S Essex, London, Manchester and N-W England: we discovered inadvertent errors in the nomination process.

We apologise to all the candidates involved and particularly those who were successful in the elections."
You will note that the ICAEW does not apologise to the membership as whole, who will have to pay for this.

Accountancy Age put the cost of the re-run as being £10K:
"FOUR OF TEN ICAEW Council elections will have to be re-run after the process was botched.
The four constituencies: South Essex; London; Manchester; and North West, ran elections to join the ICAEW that had flaws in the process.

Nominations were incorrectly made in the four constituencies. Those putting forward nominations must be fully-qualified ICAEW members, and be based within the constituency - it is understood that nominations were made that failed to meet these criteria, and were not picked up during the election process.

Michael Izza, ICAEW chief executive and returning officer for the elections, has declared the elections for these constituencies void and will be re-run.

Members ‘incorrectly' voted into council in the four constituencies will be able to attend the June council meeting as observers, said an ICAEW spokesman. The re-run should be completed by August
The cost of re-running the elections, which will involve the Electoral Reform Society, is currently estimated at £10,000."

Friday, May 04, 2012

ICAEW International Constituencies

Accountancy Age reports that the council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) has voted (without any form of irony) for the establishment of international constituencies for direct election to the council.

This of course means that the designation "in England and Wales" is now irrelevant and misleading.

Constituencies will be set up in regions and countries where there are at least 2,000 ICAEW members, on the basis of one council member per 2,000 ICAEW members.

As a result, constituencies will be set up in mainland Europe (one member), Hong Kong (one member), North America and the Caribbean (two members) and Oceania (one member) with a view to setting up further constituencies in Africa, China, the Middle East and South East Asia in the future once those areas hold enough members.

Needless to say budget allocations of members' subscriptions, because of this change, will at some stage be reapportioned.

Given that this is such a fundamental change to the ICAEW I am surprised that it was not put to the vote of the members.

I assume that the outdated Victorian trade association rule that states that members who wish to stand for election can only be nominated by 10 members within their region will remain?

Will the ICAEW in the future at least notify members within a region that someone wishes to be nominated, or will they still block that as they did when I tried to stand in 2007?

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Arthur Bailey Wins VP Position



Congratulations to Arthur Bailey, he has been elected to become the next vice president of ICAEW.

It is a pity that, despite representing the members and stating:
"One of my key priorities will be direct engagement with as many members as possible, in order to listen to their views and understand their concerns."
his electorate was limited to only those on Council, rather than the entire membership.

Engagement only works when the membership are actually engaged with by Council in "minor" matters such as elections.

Thursday, February 02, 2012

To The Polls Ye Sons of Freedom!



If anyone is interested, the contenders for position of ICAEW Vice President are:

- Arthur Bailey,
- Ian Davies,
- Nick Parker, and
- Nathan Steinberg

Did anyone actually know that these elections were taking place?

Those of you who are looking forward to vote will be sorely disappointed, the vote is closed to members (only council may vote).

Why are the members of the ICAEW not allowed to vote in these elections?

Poor old ICAEW, can't quite get this "new fangled" democracy thing can it?

Monday, October 24, 2011

HMRC's Clasper at Council

Mike Clasper (Chairman of HMRC) recently visited ICAEW Council.

Here is a summary of what he said (source ICAEW):


hmrc service standards and tax agent strategy
  
HMRC’s Chairman, Mike Clasper, and Brian Redford, Deputy Director, Business Customer & Strategy, attended the October Council meeting to discuss service standards and the recently published consultation on Tax Agent Strategy.

The decline in service standards is one of the biggest concerns currently being mentioned by the ICAEW membership. Following a highly critical report by the Treasury Select Committee published in July 2011, a meeting was held in September 2011 between HMRC’s senior management and the professional bodies and various charities to discuss what should be done to help make improvements. It was chaired by Mike Clasper and following the meeting a joint statement was published, setting out plans for HMRC to work with the professions and charities to make improvements. Tax Agents have a critical role to play and need a strong relationship with HMRC. At the moment there is a lack of trust that needs to be addressed.

There is understandable concern that promises have been made in the past to improve service standards but they have not been realised. However, the joint statement marks a turning point and shows that HMRC has picked up the challenge issued by the Treasury Select Committee to work with the profession to make improvements.

The biggest problems highlighted are post and telephone handling. The challenge for HMRC and the profession is to jointly understand the nature of the problem, develop solutions to improve the service and find performance measures that accurately reflect the customer experience.

Background
In the past, there have been different views as to how HMRC should recognise agents, with some feeling that the focus of attention should be on the tax payer. HMRC are now clear that strategically the role of the agent should be recognised in addition to the role played by the customer and there is a genuine intention on the part of HMRC to improve relationships with agents.

With the launch of HMRC in 2005, there was a loss of confidence in the organisation from customers as it was felt that it did not have a clear customer centric focus. The foundations for the merger were solid enough. It offered one tax authority for business which is a huge enabler for a customer-centric organisation, a system of dealing with large businesses that is globally competitive and a vast amount of knowledge about tax payers. However, the merger did not fully resolve the cultural differences between the two organisations and needed to deliver efficiency savings at the same time as facilitating a smooth transition from a local to a national organisation.

Following the merger, HMRC’s strategic objectives included:

-       Closing the tax gap
-       Focusing on the customer experience
-       Providing value for money
-       Operating with professionalism

In the 2010 spending review, along with all government departments HMRC was charged with cutting costs by a further 25%, but reinvestment back into HMRC was agreed with a primary focus on closing the tax gap and improving compliance.
In order to achieve HMRC’s strategic goals, there has to be a balance between three key and often conflicting aims:

1.    The tax has to be collected
2.    The customer experience has to be good
3.    HMRC has to be efficient

2010 – A difficult year

Mike acknowledged that 2010 was a difficult year and had said so on the record, but that it had to be seen in context. For HMRC employees, existing systems and processes were becoming outmoded and as configured were not able to provide a single view of a PAYE customer on its systems and this required expensive manual intervention. The system designed to support PAYE was based on 13 regionally defined databases meaning that some people had several records, some of which had not been linked and led to bad data quality and inconsistency. Working with this dated system, people developed ways of getting the right result without inputting the right data which led to further problems. HMRC underestimated the problems that would arise in the move to the new national PAYE system (NPS) and the resources that were needed to tackle them. These problems were only made worse by the resulting high volume of telephone calls that taxpayers and agents made to HMRC.

A related problem was the growing backlog for reconciling PAYE exceptions, which by 2010 had reached 23 million open cases, a problem that dated back to 1983. It was proving impossible to tackle this backlog with the existing systems.

The current situation

Mike explained that over the last few months there had been a considerable turnaround in performance and customers were starting to see the benefits of the NPS investment and other operational changes. Customer contact has improved. This year 70% of calls, on average, are answered within 40 seconds which is a massive improvement on the previous year.

Postal response times are the best they have been since the merger. The average is less than 15 days – calculated from the day the post arrives at HMRC through to when it is posted on HMRC’s system and a response sent. However, Mike accepted that this is not translating to the customer experience and this needs to be addressed. HMRC is also working with its mail partners, Fujitsu and Royal Mail, to cut delays once correspondence leaves HRMC.  But Mike acknowledged that there is more to do in improving the customer experience.

Internally, work is being done to improve professionalism and quality. Training and development is an essential part of this. HMRC is supporting professionalism through the establishment of ‘The Tax Academy’, accredited by Manchester Metropolitan University. This year, some 200 members of staff will commence their training through the academy for full technical training, although it is acknowledged that a wider section of the workforce will undertake other training and continuing professional development.  HMRC recognise some 18,000 members of staff as tax professionals.

Teams have been empowered to improve their own processes through ‘Pacesetter’ methodology and already an improvement in productivity of up to 60% has been seen in some areas.

Work is also being done to cut down on the organisation’s hierarchy. There have been up to 14 approval levels, from frontline staff up to CEO. By March next year there will be no more than eight. The top four tiers of the organisation have also been reviewed. 45% of jobs have been competed with a number filled externally to revitalise the structure and overall numbers reduced.

Up to 8,000 members of staff are also moving from processing to compliance roles in the coming years, which will help to balance the three requirements to achieving strategic goals.

On the performance challenge, HMRC staff members have received the training needed to enable them to go out and observe Tax Agents in their own firms to get a first-hand view of the problems that they are experiencing. HMRC now needs the profession to volunteer to host their staff and help improve standards. At the moment, it was proving difficult to recruit volunteer firms and Mike requested that ICAEW did all they could to promote this initiative. Since the Council meeting a significant number of  ICAEW members and others have stepped forward and the visits are will commence as planned.

Tax Agent Strategy
Allowing agents to ‘self serve’ through an online system should improve the process. By enrolling and understanding the business profiles of tax agents, it will be possible to tailor communication and support.

Through this system, HMRC will now be able to look at all interactions with agents. If there are consistent problems, they can then work with the agents to make improvements, a mutually beneficial process.
 
Conclusion
HMRC has committed to a big challenge. However, improvements can only be made with the input of the profession and it is therefore important that firms come forward to volunteer to host HMRC staff. Council members are strongly encouraged to do so, and take their opportunity to share their experiences.
 
For further information, please contact Frank Haskew, Head of the Tax Faculty, frank.haskew@icaew.com

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Anal Issues

Accountancy Age reports that Alan Livesey, an ex ICAEW Scottish council member, is none too happy with the ICAEW over rules "fudging" at the recent elections.

The ICAEW is trying to ditch its "boring Blighty" connections/brand, by growing internationally (coming soon a motion to change the name). As such council composition has been changed, and the number of reps from UK constituencies cut (eg Scotland lost one of its two council members - can you guess who?).

Note: does anyone not see the irony that the "English" Institute has Scottish councillors, given that the "English" Institute once rejected a merger with its Scottish brethren and vice versa?

Anyhoo, it seems that "technical errors" meant that the required period between voting and Tuesday's AGM (constitutionally set at 14 days) was breached, forcing an emergency suspension of election rules.

This was approved by the majority of council members. However, Livesey argues:

"There appears to be one set of rules for the masses and another, seemingly unchangeable set of rules for the institute."

All very "anal" maybe, but it rather misses the point.

As long as the ICAEW claims to be the "English" Institute, it should not bring in non institute members to council without first clarifying to its main membership why international growth is to the benefit (as opposed cost) of its members and brand value of its qualification.

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Global Ambitions Chinese Whispers

The dangers of the ICAEW's global ambitions are revealed by a question posed at the ICAEW council meeting by Alan Livesey.

Accountancy Age report that he raised the problem of students in China (where the ICAEW has recently opened a new office, to great fanfare) passing their exams without ever having paid their membership.

The institute's board was taken aback by the suggestion, and promised to investigate.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Elected To Serve?

I can appreciate that Tony Lomas has been a wee bit too busy recently to attend ICAEW Council (absent for six meetings in a row).

However, given that he evidently has other more pressing commitments, please could he explain why he wishes to remain on council?

The purpose of council, wrt the membership of the ICAEW, is what precisely?

See Accountancy Age for the background to this.

Monday, October 06, 2008

About Time!

The ICAEW is looking at plans to slash its 100 strong council, after meetings in which some members had to sit on the steps because there were no seats.

The council met yesterday to give its views on the plans, with proposals set to be brought forward, possibly for a vote in the middle of 2009.

There are more council members than there are seats in the council chamber, and there are feelings that the number of people makes it very hard for all members to put their views across in debates.
‘Some people feel that a council of over 100 people is getting a bit unwieldy.

‘If everyone were to say their halfpennyworth, every single item would last several hours.’ one council member told Accountancy Age.


Source Accountancy Age

Have I not been saying this for several years now?

It is a pity that it is the lack of seats that has prompted the ICAEW to address this issue.

I suppose we should be grateful that they did not propose building a larger council chamber!

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The ICAEW Carbon Footprint

This just in from the ICAEW:

"As part of our ongoing commitment to reduce the Institute's carbon footprint you will now be able to receive, by email, notification of your annual subscription and profile."

LOL!

Surely going online to fill in these forms will use more electricity, thus adding to greenhouse gases etc?

If the ICAEW really wants to reduce the amount of hot air in the world their time would be better employed cutting council down to 12 members or less.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Scum of The Earth

It seems that the ICAEW, either via accident or design, has managed to stir up another major row with some other accounting bodies.

Accountancy Age reports that "private papers" (intended for council only) were "accidentally" published on the ICAEW website last week.

The papers disclose a plan to rank accountants in terms of a hierarchy. The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies would be the top, and book-keepers at the bottom.

The plan is part of the ICAEW's desire to formally recognise the term "accountant", and will be submitted to the Privy Council.

The ranking will be as follows:

- CCAB
- financial accountants
- accounting technicians
- book-keepers.

Not unsurprisingly the ICAEW recognise that there may be some opposition to this (eg from the Association of International Accountants and Institute of Certified Bookkeepers).

ICB chief executive Garry Carter is quoted in Accountancy Age:

"Our members are highly qualified, they are not the scum of the earth."

It seems a very odd "accident" to publish this, given that the membership of the ICAEW are never allowed to read on the ICAEW site about what their illustrious members of council discuss or do.

I must ask why did the ICAEW publish this on the site, before they had finalised the plans?

I trust and assume that an investigation is being carried out by the ICAEW.

Needless to say, the ICAEW have now taken down the document from its site. However, I am pleased to say that I have a copy. Here it is ICAEW Report.

I would note that it contains this rather revealing paragraph:

"ICAEW has adopted a policy of getting closer to IFA and other organisations. In turn that meant that David Hunt became the IFA President in January 2007. Eric Anstee became the IFA Chairman of Council in September 2007."

Are we heading for another merger attempt, this time by the back door, or is this a takeover of IFA?

I did warn people about this in three articles in 2005 and 2006:

- The Confidential Plan

- Supersize Me!

- IFA Rumour

Monday, February 11, 2008

The New VP

Congratulations to Gerald Russell, the new Vice President of the ICAEW, who won last week's vote held by council.

For reasons that are unclear to me, the ICAEW official site does not make any mention of the election or of Gerald's victory.

As I said before, it is also a mystery as to why the ICAEW does not allow the ordinary ICAEW members to vote in this election.