Ifac heeft alle management-accountants
vrijgesteld van RAC/COS en CTK.
Uit
onderstaande mails uitgewisseld met (senior)
secretarissen van Ifac, blijkt voor alle IFAC-leden vast te staan dat:
a. alle management accounting-clubs
zich feitelijk niet gebonden achten aan de IAASB-regels
b. sommige management accounting-clubs zich mede
daarom uitdrukkelijk profileren als "non-audit"
c. de voorgeschreven kwaliteitstoetsing zich beperkt tot accountants die zich
ook bezig houden met "audit".
De Code of Ethics is primair van toepassing op de accountant als
persoon. Bij een letterlijke vertaling van de Code of Ethics
is de positie van individuele management-accountants
(samenstellers, adviseurs etc.), lid van een afzonderlijke management accounting-club aangesloten bij IFAC, duidelijk.
Daarentegen heeft de VGC de positie van management-accountants
in Nederland heel onduidelijk gemaakt door bij de definitie van openbaar
accountant in deel B van de VGC ineens de IAASB-begrippen
"assurance" en aan "assurance verwant" van stal te halen.
De IFAC Code of Ethics doet dat welbewust niet.
Daar komt bij dat het begrip "assurance"
niet alleen een weids begrip is maar ook erg weids is gedefinieerd binnen de IAASB-standaarden. Wanneer een opdrachtgever een
opdracht geeft aan een management-accountant voor een
onderzoek waarbij een derde is betrokken, is al erg gauw sprake van assurance.
De hamvraag wanneer sprake is van “audit” staat
nergens duidelijk in de IFAC regels. In de IAASB-standaarden wordt het begrip
"audit" wel veelvuldig gebruikt maar nergens gedefinieerd. De
VGC-definitie stelt "assurance" en "aan assurance verwant"
wel gelijk met "audit" en completeert zodoende de onduidelijkheden.
De Nederlandse historie van de discussie over "samenstelverklaringen"
is illustratief voor de verwarring die uit het woord "assurance"
en "verklaringen" kan voortvloeien.
Uit bovenstaande blijkt dat de leden van alle management accounting-clubs
binnen IFAC kennelijk niet gebonden zijn aan de IAASB-standaarden
die gaan over “audit”en de daarbij behorende kantoor-
en COS-voorschriften en toetsing. Waarom wil het Nivra-Bestuur
via de VGC juist in Nederland dan wel alle management-accountants
binden aan kantoor- en COS-voorschriften en toetsing?
Het kan toch niet de bedoeling van het Nivra-Bestuur
zijn om, naast wettelijke controles ook alle andere diensten die "openbare
accountants" zouden kunnen verrichten onder het monopolie van
"openbare accountants" te brengen. Een dergelijk monopolie van
"openbare accountants" kan alleen in Nederland bestaan omdat er geen
mogelijkheid is binnen de huidige regelgeving om een afzonderlijke club van
"management accountants" op te richten".
======================================
Mail
uitwisseling met (senior) secretarissen
van Ifac
|
Indien
de lezer is geïnteresseerd in de inhoud van de discussie, adviseren we te
beginnen met lezen bij de eerste email, dat is onderaan. Mocht u willen begrijpen
dat de bij Ifac voorgeschreven Clarity-Standaard
iets anders is dan duidelijkheid geven aan het publiek, begin dan bovenaan
met lezen van de laatste email. Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: What Standards Apply
When?]] From:"C.B.A. Spil" <corneel.spil@finiconsult.com> Date:Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:05:45 +0200 To:Jim Sylph <jimsylph@ifac.org> CC:Paul Thomson <paulthompson@ifac.org>, Vincent Tophoff
<VincentTophoff@IFAC.org> Dear Mr. Sylph, Thanks for your comments confirming the view that as
to services covered by IAASB-standards but provided in fact by management
accountants, there
is no written Ifac standard, guideline or
evidence, just personal or institute
opinions. Because in fact all
management accounting organizations inside Ifac do
not feel bound by IAASB-standards, this actual conduct should obviously
be considered as "best practice" for management accountants. As to clarity IFAC has a duty in my opinion, to make clear to
the public at large that the same services may be offered by audit oriented
accountants, bound by IAASB-standards but also by advice oriented
accountants, not bound by IAASB-standards. I appreciate that you are not in a position to
contribute to clarity by providing written opinions. Therefore, this may end our mail
conversation. Thanks very much for all your efforts in elucidating this
subject matter. As our contribution to
the Clarity project, you may expect some future Dutch efforts inside Ifac to clarify this subject matter by written Ifac standards or guidelines. Best Regards, Corneel B.A. Spil 00-31-411-641699 Jim Sylph wrote: Thanks you for your note. We do not provide written
opinions. Jim Sylph James M. Sylph International
Federation of Accountants Executive
Director, Professional Standards 545 direct: +1-212-286-9348 main: +1-212-286-9344 fax: +1-212-286-9570 If an addressing or transmission error has
misdirected this e-mail to other than the intended recipient, please notify
the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient
you must not use, disclose, print or rely on the information contained in
this e-mail. From: C.B.A. Spil
[mailto:corneel.spil@finiconsult.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:34 PM To: Jim Sylph Cc: Vincent Tophoff; Paul
Thompson Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: What Standards Appy When?]] Dear Mr. Sylph, Thanks very much for your answer. So we agree on ISQC1. I never mentioned that ISQC1 was unclear. At the end of your second paragraph, after the words
"and therefore falls under the ...", some words are missing. I assume
these "missing words" are the IAASB standards. I appreciate of course your personal
opinion on that matter. As senior secretary to IAASB I could not imagine you
having any other opinion. However, it is the written IFAC opinion that
matters. Given the fact that all
management accountants inside IFAC who regularly provide those services, do
not consider themselves applicable to IAASB-standards, I assume their conduct
represents the IFAC opinion better than any personal opinion. My point about standards not being clear is that
there is not any written evidence to support their view. I disagree with you that it is a matter to
be dealt with my own institute. They have, also without written evidence, the same opinion as you on the subject. It is the duty of IFAC to provide clarity to the
public. Therefore,
some personal and some institute's opinion do not matter. So, I would be very grateful to have Ifac's written opinion on the issue at hand. If there is
no written evidence, then it should be created to provide substance to
clarity. For the time being, there is
no other alternative other than accepting the behaviour of a majority of IFAC
members being management accountants, as the best substitute for written
evidence. Thanks very much for providing more clarity. Best Regards, Corneel B.A. Spil Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: What Standards Appy When?]] From: "C.B.A. Spil"
<corneel.spil@finiconsult.com> Date:Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:22:19 +0200 To:Jim Sylph <jimsylph@ifac.org> CC:Paul Thomson <paulthompson@ifac.org>, Vincent Tophoff
<VincentTophoff@IFAC.org> Dear Mr. Sylph, Maybe also my last email to you on June 6 got lost
again, so herewith a new and last forward. As you understand an obvious lack of clarity in Ifac standards, worries me and it should worry Ifac and the general public also. Therefore I do hope you are willing to explain me
why it is has not been made clear that IAASB-Standards and Quality Control
are applicable only to members doing audit and not to management accountants
(not doing audit) where both are working in the same overlapping areas of
activities. Best Regards, Corneel B.A. Spil Subject: [Fwd: Re: What Standards Appy When?] |
|
From:
"C.B.A. Spil" <corneel.spil@finiconsult.com> |
|
Date:
Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:57:09 +0200 |
|
To: Jim Sylph
<jimsylph@ifac.org> |
|
CC: Paul Thomson <paulthompson@ifac.org>,
Vincent Tophoff <VincentTophoff@IFAC.org> |
Dear Mr. Sylph,
Maybe my email dated the 15th of May got lost somewhere. Herewith
a forward.
I still remain confused that identical activities of accountants in public
practice and accountants in business according to my "English"
interpretation result in different guide lines valid for accountants in public
practice and valid for accountants in business.
This is a reminder hoping you may contribute to the Clarity of IAASB Standards.
Thanks for your reply.
Best Regards,
Corneel B.A. Spil
00-31-411-641699
|
Subject: Re: What Standards Appy
When? |
|
From: "C.B.A. Spil" <corneel.spil@finiconsult.com> |
|
Date:
Tue, 15 May 2007 11:56:25
+0200 |
|
To: Jim Sylph <jimsylph@ifac.org> |
|
CC:
Paul Thompson <paulthompson@ifac.org>,
Vincent Tophoff <VincentTophoff@ifac.org> |
Dear Mr. Sylph,
Sorry if I did not accurately understood or interpreted your words. Maybe my
understanding of English terminology is insufficient.
However, I thought I just quoted the relevant Ifac
definitions and concluded from those definitions that there large overlapping
areas of activities to which both definitions of "professional accountant
in public practice" and of "professional accountant in business" apply. Where did I go wrong then?
Thanks for your answer. I am out of the office now for two weeks so take
your time.
Best Regards,
Corneel B.A. Spil
00-31-411-641699
Jim Sylph wrote:
Dear Mr Spil,
Thank you for your note.
I think that my original note was very clear in
explaining who would be considered a professional accountant in public
practice. I do not think you have accurately understood or interpreted my
words. I do not accept that the IFAC Code is not precise. It seems to be
well understood on a consistent basis by IFAC Member Bodies around the world.
I do not think that further exchanges of communication on this matter
will benefit either of us. I shall watch the debates between Royal NIVRA and
its members with interest.
Yours truly, Jim Sylph
James M. Sylph
International
Federation of Accountants
Executive
Director, Professional Standards
545
direct: +1-212-286-9348
main: +1-212-286-9344
fax: +1-212-286-9570
If an addressing or
transmission error has misdirected this e-mail to other than the intended
recipient, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, print or rely on the
information contained in this e-mail.
From: C.B.A. Spil [mailto:corneel.spil@finiconsult.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Jim Sylph
Cc: Paul Thompson; Vincent Tophoff
Subject: Re: What Standards Appy When?
Dear Mr. Sylph,
Thanks for your answer that was very helpful to clear some misunderstandings.
First of all the term "member in business
practice". This term was wilfully
designed in my email to indicate exactly our real question: is such a
"member in business practice" a "professional accountant in
public practice" to which part B of the Code of Ethics applies or is he a
"professional accountant in business" to which part C of the
Code of Ethics applies? For the term "professional accountant in
business" does not only cover professional accountants employed by
corporations, the Government etc., but also professional accountants engaged by
or contracted by such entities, or self-employed in providing other services
than assurance and assurance related services.
So, the definition of "professional
accountant in public practice" and of "professional accountant
in business" show large overlapping areas of activities to which
both definitions apply. Our question aimed at a solution for that
overlap. As a matter of fact all management accounting organizations,
members of IFAC not doing audit work, feel themselves "professional accountants
in business" and therefore the IAASB standards do not apply to them.
So, there would be no need to subject them to Part B of the Code of Ethics and
to ISQC-1. To eliminate the overlap and to separate the
"professional accountants in public practice" from the
"professional accountants in business", we concluded that the
demarcation line could only be the publicly expressed determination by an
organization to provide or not to provide services aimed at the
‘public-at-large’, i.e. audit work.
According to its mission statement, IFAC's mission is
"establishing and promoting adherence to high-quality professional
standards, furthering the international convergence of such standards ...". Such standards should of course be precise and
clear. You will agree that large overlapping areas of activities to which
different standards apply, are not compatible with high-quality
professional work. It is true that it is primarily the duty of member
bodies to set precise and clear standards. However, when the IFAC definitions
are not precise enough, the mission statement of IFAC obliges to clarification.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Best Regards,
Corneel B.A. Spil
00-31-411-641699
Jim Sylph wrote:
Dear
Mr Spil,
Thank
you for your inquiry.
The IFAC Code of Ethics was certainly written to apply to more members
of our profession that simply auditors. The definition of "professional
accountant in public practice" is clearly set out in the Glossary to the
Code. Management accountants - that is to say - professional accountants
employed by corporations, the Government etc, are by definition not
professional accountants in public practice. However if those same professional
accountants operate a public practice in which they offer their professional
services to a variety of clients (even if not audit services) they are deemed
to be "professional accountants in public practice". I am not
competent to understand the term member in business practice that you use in
your commentary. However, it would seem to me that a business practice in which
a professional accountant provides consulting advice and opinions to a variety
of clients is clearly encompassed by the IFAC definition of professional
accountant in public practice.
You are correct that in many countries the term auditor is a defined
term that may require the member of an IFAC member body to get a license from
some independent regulator. As such the professional accountant in public
practice cannot use the term auditor.
While SMO 1 establishes obligations for member bodies to have quality
assurance review programs for members performing certain audit engagements, it
is the right of any member body to extend that minimum requirement to a broader
class of engagements including other forms of assurance engagements provided by
professional accountants in public practice and thus the ISAs,
ISREs etc may apply to those members. The IAASB
standards do not apply to accountants providing business advice.
Contrary to your conclusion number 3, ISQC 1 paragraph 1 makes it clear
that the ISQC applies to any firm or practitioner performing audits, reviews of
historical financial information and for other assurance and related service
engagements. That means any form of professional service that would fall under
the guidance published by IAASB through its audit, review, compilation and
assurance standards.
It is the responsibility of your member body to determine to whom its
rules of conduct apply and how to interpret those rules.
I trust this is helpful to you.
Kind regards,
Jim Sylph
James M. Sylph, International Federation of Accountants, Executive
Director, Professional Standards
545
direct: +1-212-286-9348,
main: +1-212-286-9344, fax: +1-212-286-9570
If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail
to other than the intended recipient, please notify the author by replying to
this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose,
print or rely on the information contained in this e-mail.
From: C.B.A. Spil [mailto:corneel.spil@finiconsult.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:04 AM
To: Paul Thomson; Jim Sylph
Cc: Vincent Tophoff
Subject: What Standards Apply When?
Dear Mr. Sylph and Mr Thomson ,
At the advice of Vincent Tophoff working for the PAIB
committee, I would appreciate having the opinion of Jim Sylph (IAASB) and Paul
Thomson (SMP) on some issues in the
BACKGROUND
In the course of the last 40 years, legislators in the
The reason why the accountants that do not occupy themselves with
financial statements auditing remain members of one of these two organisations
is a simple one. They have acquired their protected title after a long
graduate and post-graduate study. But they would loose their title if they
would resign from the organisation. That would obviously damage their justified
commercial and financial interests.
Recently, NIVRA introduced a new ethics code (VGC), which is largely a
translation of the Code of Ethics of IFAC. Due to a quirk in Dutch legislation,
NOvAA was in effect obliged to introduce a virtually
identical code. In both organisations, the membership had to vote on the new
code, and it passed with rather slim majorities.
In translating the Code of Ethics of IFAC, ‘professional accountant in
public practice’ was translated in such a way that the Dutch equivalent now is
virtually indistinguishable from the ‘auditor’ as meant in ISA’s 1 to 1,000,
that deal with the audit of financial statements. This entails that large
groups of members would be subject to ISQC1 and quite a lot of other standards
(ISRE, ISAE, ISRS) that are totally unsuitable
for the services they provide.
So, resistance against the VGC is fierce and widespread. It comes from
the large group of providers of (only) management accounting services to SME’s, as they are now subjected to rules tailored to the
audit of financial statements. The same goes for the providers of all sorts of
business services, as the latter have been included in the definition of the
services that auditors of financial statements provide. These two groups
consider themselves to be ‘accountant in business’,
not ‘auditors’.
Basically all accountants in business (almost 50% of members of NIVRA)
resisted the VGC for various reasons but the request by their representatives to postpone the vote on the VGC was
declined by the board of NIVRA. The combined feeling was that
larger auditing organizations in
At this moment, two foundations are supporting the resistance of both
management accountants and other business service providers: one for
NIVRA, the SWA, one for NOvAA, the WMO. Both
foundations want to open a discussion on these issues and do not exclude
terminating membership with NIVRA/NOvAA. They do have
to solve however the problem of the title monopoly because loosing an
academic accountancy title destroys economic value.
FACTS
1. As I understood from Vincent Tophoff all
management accounting organizations members of IFAC
not doing auditing work, feel actually not to be affected by ISQC1 nor any
other ISA, ISRE, ISAE, and ISRS standards from IAASB. All resisting Dutch
members in business practice are not doing audit
work but do in fact general management accounting.
2. A well informed representative of a management accounting organization
consisting mainly of advisors/compilers (Mr. Martin Nimmo
of Cima UK), confirms this view and stresses the
point that their members are not allowed creating even the perception of being
an auditor or ever describe themselves as auditors.
3. The enclosed IFAC Statements of Membership Obligations, states clearly that SMO 1 – Quality Assurance/ISQC1, is only
applicable to members performing certain audit engagements of financial
statements. All resisting Dutch members in public practice are not doing
audit work but general management accounting.
OUR CONCLUSIONS
From fact 1 above it may be concluded that ISQC1 nor
any other ISA, ISRE, ISAE, and ISRS standards from IAASB are applicable to
Dutch members in business practice not doing audit work, contrary to the
opinion of NIVRA/NOvAA.
From fact 2 above may be inferred that it is always advisable to draw a clear
line between audit and advice.
Fact 3 above makes clear that at least ISQC1 or other quality control systems
are not applicable to Dutch members in business practice not doing audit
work, contrary to the opinion of NIVRA/NOvAA.
It is highly unlikely that an organization like Ifac
would force their members into separate auditing and management accountant
organizations just because of unclear wordings and their implied potential
risks being seen as an auditor.
From the above we conclude that ISQC1 nor any other ISA, ISRE, ISAE,
and ISRS standards from IAASB are applicable for Dutch members in
business practice that are not doing audit work but just provide general
management accounting and other business services. We feel that this is
clear by definition for ISA's (audit standards), ISRE's
(Review standards), and IAPS's (auditing
practice). However, the wording of ISAE's
(assurance) and ISRS's (related services) are very
imprecise and may be interpreted in many ways. But it is clear from their
wording and intentions that they suppose an audit environment and an audit
attitude. When the basic state of mind of an organization is being an
advisor and not an auditor, this organization does not intend to do any audit
work and makes it also clear to the public that it acts as an advisor and not
as an auditor, we feel that this is enough to assume that ISAE's
(assurance) and ISRS's (related services) are not
applicable.
QUESTION
Are our conclusions correct, in your view?
We would be very grateful for your reply.
Best Regards,
Corneel B.A. Spil
00-31-411-641699
(not in his office from 21-29 april)