Chartered Accountants Annual Fee 2024

[ArthurMcB]

Hi,

I just got my annual 'bill'. For this year their fee is E636. My employer will pay it. However, i feel its very high and represents poor/no value i.e i get nothing really in return except that they allow me to continue to call myself a CA.

Id love to know how many active ICAI members there are and that pay this fee.

Say its 40,000 and i suspect it coukd be a lot more. That 40,000 X 636 = 25.5m. That is serious money.

 

[Sue Ellen]

Is this the same organisation who run compulsory training courses to achieve CPD hours and then make a lot more € through that?

 

[T McGibney]

Is this the same organisation who run compulsory training courses to achieve CPD hours and then make a lot more € through that?

They're not compulsory and there are multiple alternatives. I haven't done a CAI training course for well over a decade.

 

[ArthurMcB]

They're not compulsory and there are multiple alternatives. I haven't done a CAI training course for well over a decade.

Same.

I receive no benefit really at all from ICAI.

The revenue they generate from this annual fee is massive, the salaries they pay are huge, per their own financial statements. They wasted millions on their building.

Is there nothing of interest to the media in terms of investigating the running of this organisation? They blackmail members into paying their fee with threats of removing hard earned deignation, earned through completing tough exams and a 3.5 year training contract. It stinks and should be looked in to. God knows what would be uncovered!

 

[T McGibney]

Is there nothing of interest to the media in terms of investigating the running of this organisation? They blackmail members into paying their fee with threats of removing hard earned deignation, earned through completing tough exams and a 3.5 year training contract. It stinks and should be looked in to. God knows what would be uncovered!

They're most likely no better nor worse than hundreds if not thousands of similar organisations. Most members couldn't care less because they don't even pay their own subscriptions.

 

[Annieindublin]

You can get your CPD anywhere, and it is ok as long as it’s relevant to your job. So you don’t need to go to the institute for that, not these days anyway.
I think it’s 32k members, students don’t pay the annual sub. Retired and unemployed and on a career breaks etc get discounts or free.

But registered firms pay additional fees, it’s part of the regulation. They get inspected and licensed, if the institute didn’t do that IAASA would and they’d have to pay IAASA instead. Or some UK body if you are in NI.

The turnover is 35m according to the accounts on their website. Actually there is a lot of information in the accounts. And it seems that the agm is in may so you could attend and ask questions.

Did you go to the special meeting last week and ask questions?

Just wondering what you’ve ever asked of them. They lobby for tax and other stuff AFAIK. Lots of business related reliefs and their tax people seem active.

 

[trajan]

They're most likely no better nor worse than hundreds if not thousands of similar organisations. Most members couldn't care less because they don't even pay their own subscriptions.

But can members retain their CA status on their nameplate, stationary and business cards if they ignore their annual fee demand?

Not so for engineers.

 

[T McGibney]

But can members retain their CA status on their nameplate, stationary and business cards if they ignore their annual fee demand?

Not so for engineers.

Of course not. But the vast majority of chartered accountants don't have nameplates, stationery or business cards because they're in employment.

 

[trajan]

Of course not. But the vast majority of chartered accountants don't have nameplates, stationery or business cards because they're in employment.

Not nameplates but surely business cards and some with company stationary showing their quals. Not to mention the blurbs on staff on the websites: " . . . Jim is a chartered accountant and member of the Chartered Governance Institute . . .", that sort of thing.

I know that many accounting/audit/financial advisory firms pay things like golf/sailing/rotary/etc club memberships and the rationale is clear: make friends and try and get some new business during the summer. I'm not sure I see the rationale for an employer paying an accountant employee's annual professional body membership. If a professional person hasn't the decency to maintain - perhaps even enhance - their own status within their own profession then what employer would really want them ?

The question of how much should be paid in annual fees is another matter entirely. As are the questions of where this money goes, who decides on its applications, who manages it and who oversees the management of it.

32,000 x €636 = €20, 352, 000 - that's a lot of dough to have gathered evey year.

If it was an engineers' body, I'd only be happy with a member elected oversight committee.

 

[T McGibney]

Not nameplates but surely business cards and some with company stationary showing their quals. Not to mention the blurbs on staff on the websites: " . . . Jim is a chartered accountant and member of the Chartered Governance Institute . . .", that sort of thing.

That's primarily a matter for the company they work for, isn't it?

I know that many accounting/audit/financial advisory firms pay things like golf/sailing/rotary/etc club memberships and the rationale is clear: make friends and try and get some new business during the summer.

All BIK-able in full.

Let's face it, people don't go golfing or sailing in the summer to drum up business for their employers.

I'm not sure I see the rationale for an employer paying an accountant employee's annual professional body membership. If a professional person hasn't the decency to maintain - perhaps even enhance - their own status within their own profession then what employer would really want them ?

Very simple. Many financial controller etc job descriptions require that the post holder holds a recognised qualification.

As are the questions of where this money goes, who decides on its applications, who manages it and who oversees the management of it.

All of those questions are very easily answered if you do even the most basic research.

 

[trajan]

All of those questions are very easily answered if you do even the most basic research.That's primarily a matter for the company they work for, isn't it?

I disagree entirely.

Why should an employer pay annual professional membership fees for someone who is in truth the primary beneficiary from that body's services to him/her ? Moreover when they are often only able to get such positions as they have as a result of them holding that professional membership.

All BIK-able in full.

I forgot about this aspect. It is certainly a cute sort of benefit to give to employees - a benefit that if allocated judiciously could have a kick-back to the employer.

Let's face it, people don't go golfing or sailing in the summer to drum up business for their employers.

I don't entirely agree.
If what you are saying is true then their employers are fools to repay the substantial club memberships for them. Employers are no donkeys about paying the expenses of professionally qualified employees: these expenses will usually be high, reflecting the professional's liquidity and capacity for high recreation: to pay them unquestionngly would invite wholesale expense corruption. Employers willingly pay such expenses only where there exists a reasonable prospect of that membership benefitting the employer. For accountants, architects, solicitors, consultants, etc this benefit boils down to - unpushily and amicably of course - bringing in new clients by generating goodwill towards themselves.

Some accounting firms may pay membership of a golf/sailing/hunt/bridge club but may not pay for poker, mountaineering, diving, pot-holing, flying, etc though people opting for the latter diversions would often be bored in a golf club on a Sunday.

Very simple. Many financial controller etc job descriptions require that the post holder holds a recognised qualification.

Of course they do, it's an essential.

But that being so, isn't the onus on the employee to maintain that level of professional status ?

All of those questions are very easily answered if you do even the most basic research.

In the annual report ?


Overall I'm not saying it's illegal or immoral - I am simply saying that there ought to be no automatic expectation that employers should provide such benefits to professional employees. It is a (smart) BIK from the employer's point of view. Personally I'd prefer not to have my fees paid by an employer even if it was financially convenient every January. Neither would I want a professional body be the issuer of my credit card.
Maybe it is the very ubiquity of employers paying annual membership fees that encourages professional bodies like CAI to up the ante to where it is now.

 

[Purple]

Of course they do, it's an essential.

Just on that, why is it essential?
If a Financial Controllers let their certification laps they wouldn't suddenly become incompetent. If they were competent to do the job the day before it lapsed why would they not continue to be the day after?

 

[trajan]

@Purple

Every professional body has a register of practising members and being up to date with annual fees is a condition of being registered as a professional member for many professional bodies. Some late payment is allowed but a cut-off point is always there. Some bodies will send so many warnings about late fees but a deadline eventually comes. Members in hardship can apply for deferment or fee reduction in some pro bodies but the process is embarrassing for claimants.

Sure, absence from a register doesn't equate to functional incompetence. However it might in the case of a financial controller mean an absence of functional authority where his duties are proscribed to those with an active membership of a recognized accountancy body.

More to the point is the potential reputational damage to a high-status employing company were its financial controller to be outed as a lapsed member of their professional body.

In the light of the latter point, I can see why some employers might want to take active control of their staff's annual professional membership fees - the distraction of ongoing work and the inclination to put things off can often lead to this eventuality.

 

[ArthurMcB]

potential reputational damage to a high-status employing company were its financial controller to be outed as a lapsed member of their professional body.

This simply would not arise.

Who would care and why? Again, if the individual was competent and performing well it shouldnt nor wouldnt matter. Simple as that.

it might in the case of a financial controller mean an absence of functional authority where his duties are proscribed to those with an active membership of a recognized accountancy body.

Similar point - if an individual was competant and performing well theyre authority wouldnt suddenly diminish if they ceased been a CA. Again, nobody would care - so long as the individual was competent.

 

[trajan]

Who would care and why?

The members paying their own annual fees - often with just as much inconvenience and struggle as the non-payers.

The accountancy body concerned - who have to maintain member discipline and their own revenues.

The state agencies for corporate governance - it's their job to rein in senior company officers in breach of their duties.

Similar point - if an individual was competant and performing well theyre authority wouldnt suddenly diminish if they ceased been a CA. Again, nobody would care - so long as the individual was competent.

Being a financial controller isn't just a "good job" - it's a senior officer appointment within the management of a state registered commercial enterprise. This means that there are legal aspects to being a financial controller. This includes competence - and here competence has a broader and more legalistic meaning: it doesn't just mean that you have the capacity to do the job; it also means that you have been appropriately appointed and that you perform the job appropriately vis-a-vis the Companies Act.

A financial controller whose ACA, ACCA, CPU, CIMA, etc membership is 1 day lapsed may well be in only technical breach of decisions made while lapsed. But were he/she to just carry on ignoring demands from his professional body to pay the annual fees then things could get more serious for them. It's not so much about the harm (or lack of harm) they have actually done: it's about maintaining healthy company practice and corporate governance.

All this is to justify some annual fee from members - but not to the amount often demanded by professional bodies.

 

[Purple]

Being a financial controller isn't just a "good job" - it's a senior officer appointment within the management of a state registered commercial enterprise.

It's a job. The Health and Safety Manager and, in areas such as Medical Device manufacturing, the Quality Manager are jobs which require that the employee interacts with the State, can be personally criminally liable for not doing their job properly. They also have to stay up to date with legislation. Just like Revenue the HSA and bodies such as ISO issue details of changes to rules and legislation and it is incumbent upon the employee to keep up to date in those matters.

None of them are required to be part of a professional body. In the case of the accountant there'll be an external auditor which will be checking their work anyway, just as bodies such as the NSAI audit quality standards.

 

[ArthurMcB]

A financial controller whose ACA, ACCA, CPU, CIMA, etc membership is 1 day lapsed may well be in only technical breach of decisions made while lapsed

What on earth are you talking about. You arent living in the real world.

An employer wouldnt care or indeed even know if an employee, whether they are cfo or internal auditor etc, is no longer a mamber of whatever body nor would they requires that they be. Nor would it render their decisions in any way ineffwctive all of a sudden. I think you have a misguided outdated view of this.

Peoples skills and ability to do their job is all that matters and that doesnt suddenly stop if they dont pay their annual ransom to their Body of choice.

 

[Leo]

Why should an employer pay annual professional membership fees for someone who is in truth the primary beneficiary from that body's services to him/her ?

It's a common perk offered by many employers across multiple sectors. My IT employer covers the cost of any one such membership.

 

[trajan]

@ArthurMcB and @Purple:

I think you both don't get or don't want to accept the difference between physical/functional competence and authoritative competence.

None of them are required to be part of a professional body.

Capacity to do certain jobs is not in itself enough to even get the job, let alone be allowed to discharge it continually.
Look at professional job ads. Engineers are expected to be members of the relevant institute for their discipline (IEEE, IMechE, ICE, etc) and normally Chartered Engineers (C.Eng.) too. Depending on the job concerned this stipulation may be from the agency hiring, the employer, the employer's client where it's a contract job, the state in which the work is done or whatever. I see similar requirements on professional qualifications for accountants. Sure, they don't say explicitly that your ACA/ACCA/etc membership must be current. But maybe they assume that. And maybe the hiring company will check that anyhow. And no doubt exclude those whose registered status has been lost due to years long non-payment of annual fees.

In the case of the accountant there'll be an external auditor which will be checking their work anyway, just as bodies such as the NSAI audit quality standards.

Employers may well often want their own accountants to be qualified to CPU/ACCA/ACA/CIMA standard anyway. Yes, the accounts maintenance might well be done by people qualified to accounting technician status. But other aspects of financial management may be beyond their scope, let alone the desire of senior management to allow them to attempt them.

As an engineer I can say with confidence that for amoral as well as moral reasons that nobody without the proper qualifications and institute memberships/chartered status/etc would be taken into a position of quality responsibility in a medical device manufacturing plant. NASI auditing quality standards isn't much use if piles of individually expensive artificial knees have been churned out and passed quality checks in the meantime: the potential financial loss is too high.

You mention the obligation of professionals to both familiarise themselves with updated standards and practices and do their quota of CPE. This is doable by individuals on their own. But CPE courses are far more economic to the individual were it organised en bloc through say a professional body. $636 a year might not buy the individual professional much CPE for the year. But it would buy a lot of CPE if a selection of courses were available on a block booking basis arranged by a pro body.

There is a note of rage in your responses. Perhaps it's time you discussed this face to face with people in your own profession. I cannot say to either of you that you challenge the professional body you belong to - that's a personal decision affected by many personal factors and evaluations. But it is time you made up your own mind about better alternatives to what you see as an imposition. I say this as someone who dumped my own (notoriously corrupt) pro body 30 years ago.

 

[trajan]

Why should an employer pay annual professional membership fees for someone who is in truth the primary beneficiary from that body's services to him/her ?

It's a common perk offered by many employers across multiple sectors. My IT employer covers the cost of any one such membership.

Leo, the emphasis in my question is on why an employer be obliged to pay pro membership fees - not what benefit might accrue to the employer/employee for so doing.

This thread is going around in many directions - people objecting to the existence and amount of annual fees, yet still being compliant to their employer paying them; people finding paying such fees as a useful BIK to retain staff; people not objecting to some fees but being curious as to how they are applied, the pro body staff overhead, property purchase, etc; and a great deal of silence from the many ACAs in the AAM membership - notably Brendan himself - from whom one might expect clear leadership.