New houses should not have to meet high BER requirements

[Purple]

There is no basis for any assumption that the intake of people entering accountancy as a career are any more honest or ethical than anyone else,

Good. We agree on that.

but the training and career progression path that they will follow will certainly weed out, sooner or later, those who are dishonest or unethical.

How? It might weed out those who make bad judgements or break the rules but it is the rules and fear of sanction that binds them to behave well.

No employer, agency or customer will want to touch an accountant or bookkeeper whose career has been previously tainted by involvement in fraud, pilferage or other dishonesty, and those who become thus tainted invariably find their career options narrowing dramatically.

I always think there is greater level of trust required to have a tradesperson in your home when your children are there than to hire a solicitor to sell your house or an accountant to do your tax return.
Dishonest and incompetent people generally find their career paths limited.

Nobody minds a wideboy plumber or engineer, but they will steer a mile away from a wideboy accountant.

The engineers shoddy work might kill you.

And by and large the same goes for solicitors.

Is it fair to say that it is a reluctance to lose your livelihood than limits the malfeasance of professionals rather than the inherent ethics or honesty of the individuals?

 

[T McGibney]

It is unethical not to ask for more information where there is a suspicion of wrongdoing.

That's a sweeping statement that is not always true, for example where there is a suspicion of money laundering and where the accountant or other professional is bound by law not to risk tipping off the subject that they have rumbled a suspected ML offence.

But many won't ask and rely on the "we only had what was put in front of us" to remain compliant with their own standards.

You have a very poor understanding of auditing standards if you think this sort of excuse will pass muster.

Again I'm only using accountants because you have gotten hung up on defending them

So your primary motivation here is to get one over on another poster? Wow.

 

[Purple]

How does this accountant register you with Revenue as their client without including in their own books any income from the work they have completed for you? Genuine question.

They charge you a lower fee and take the balance in cash.
Over the last 25 years I’ve been offered cash discounts by accountants, structural engineers, solicitors and, most commonly, doctors. Then there's the teachers who do grinds for cash, they claim to be professionals too.

 

[Purple]

That's a sweeping statement that is not always true, for example where there is a suspicion of money laundering and where the accountant or other professional is bound by law not to risk tipping off the subject that they have rumbled a suspected ML offence.

There’s been quite a few doctors done for tax evasion in the last few years. Im sure they have accounts.
I was at a meeting with a doctor and her accountant and the accountant went through in quite some detail how she could skim cash out of the business. I was shocked. The doctor in question was delighted.

 

[T McGibney]

They charge you a lower fee and take the balance in cash.

That's not what he said and not what a cash job is. And no accountant worthy of the name thinks the Revenue are that stupid.

Over the last 25 years I’ve been offered cash discounts by accountants, structural engineers, solicitors and, most commonly, doctors.

Did you give repeat custom to these people?

 

[Purple]

Did you give repeat custom to these people?

That’s actually a good question
The doctors were consultants. They only took cash. I got into an argument with the secretary of one when I asked for a receipt with a sequential number printed on it. She refused so I gave her a cheque.
The engineer was signing off on a house extension.
The solicitor was acting for a family member and I haven’t used him since because I have an excellent solicitor already.

 

[T McGibney]

but it is the rules and fear of sanction that binds them to behave well.

Who csn tell? It was Elizabeth I who said "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls," when asked a similar question.

I always think there is greater level of trust required to have a tradesperson in your home when your children are there than to hire a solicitor to sell your house or an accountant to do your tax return.

If you're allowing tradesmen unsupervised access to your children, the problem is with you, not the professionals you hire.

Is it fair to say that it is a reluctance to lose your livelihood than limits the malfeasance of professionals rather than the inherent ethics or honesty of the individuals?

Again, refer to Elizabeth I. I don't read minds either.

 

[Purple]

That's not what he said and not what a cash job is. And no accountant worthy of the name thinks the Revenue are that stupid.

It’s still tax evasion though.

 

[T McGibney]

That’s actually a good question
The doctors were consultants. They only took cash. I got into an argument with the secretary of one when I asked for a receipt with a sequential number printed on it. She refused so I gave her a cheque.
The engineer was signing off on a house extension.
The solicitor was acting for a family member and I haven’t used him since because I have an excellent solicitor already.

Well this sort of evasion wouldn't be happening if consumers were refusing to entertain it. A contract tainted by illegality is generally unenforceable so you could easily have refused to pay any of these geezers.

 

[T McGibney]

It’s still tax evasion though.

Aided and abetted by the consumer, and a criminal offence on their part.

 

[Purple]

Who csn tell? It was Elizabeth I who said "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls," when asked a similar question.

Okay, we’re getting somewhere. You now accept that their adherence to the rules may not be due to their ethics and may indeed be due to a fear of the consequence of breaking the rules.

If you're allowing tradesmen unsupervised access to your children, the problem is with you, not the professionals you hire.

Who said anything about unsupervised access?

Again, refer to Elizabeth I. I don't read minds either.

And I refer you to my reply above.

 

[T McGibney]

That’s actually a good question
The doctors were consultants. They only took cash. I got into an argument with the secretary of one when I asked for a receipt with a sequential number printed on it. She refused so I gave her a cheque.
The engineer was signing off on a house extension.
The solicitor was acting for a family member and I haven’t used him since because I have an excellent solicitor already.

The accountants?

 

[Purple]

Well this sort of evasion wouldn't be happening if consumers were refusing to entertain it. A contract tainted by illegality is generally unenforceable so you could easily have refused to pay any of these geezers.

I agree, people are not always ethical, though one of the above geezers was going to operate on me in a place disturbingly close to my testicles so I though it better to keep him sweet.

 

[T McGibney]

You not accept that their adherence to the rules may not be due to their ethics and may indeed be due to a fear of the consequence of breaking the rules.

I have no idea what this means.

Who said anything about unsupervised access?

You, when you referenced "greater levels of trust" in connection with children. If not, what were you trying to say?

 

[Purple]

The accountants?

I didn’t use them again though a former family member did.

 

[Purple]

I have no idea what this means

My typo, “now”, not “not”.

You, when you referenced "greater levels of trust" in connection with children. If not, what were you trying to say?

If someone is working in your house for days or weeks at a time you cannot supervise their every move.

 

[Purple]

Aided and abetted by the consumer, and a criminal offence on their part.

Absolutely. The customers are no more or less ethical or honest than the professionals.

 

[T McGibney]

My typo, “now”, not “not”.

Putting words in my mouth again. Not good. Nor is your haranguing me and other accountants here for our supposed collective moral failures while you now admit to repeatedly facilitating and profiting from tax evasion.

If someone is working in your house for days or weeks at a time you cannot supervise their every move.

I can only refer you to my earlier comment. Child protection isn't optional.

 

[Purple]

Putting words in my mouth again. Not good.

I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m drawing conclusions from what you are saying.

Not is your haranguing me and other accountants here for our supposed collective moral failures while you now admit to repeatedly facilitating and profiting from tax evasion.

I’m not haranguing anyone. I’m proposing that people in all walks of life are prone to the same moral failures to more or less the same degree. That’s all.

 

[T McGibney]

I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m drawing conclusions from what you are saying.

"You accept that..." is at best doing both.

I’m proposing that people in all walks of life are prone to the same moral failures to more or less the same degree. That’s all.

Sure we all knew that from day one. What an utter and dispiriting waste of time this has all been.