Qualified Accountant Status

[Manukau]

Now this is probably going to start some arguements but i want to know the UKBF's User thoughts on calling your self a Qualified accountant.

This comes after i posted a Bid on a freelancing site (which i am getting sick and tired of people only seem to be interested in price rather than the quality of service)

I got rejected for a particluar bid with the following reason:
Quote :" AAT qualified is an accounting technician not a qualified accountant!!!!!!!!!"

Now as i am allowed to say i am accountant ( same as any body on this planet, which i don;t get) and i am qualified....surely that makes me a qualified accountant?????

just to rule out any confusion at no point in my bid did i say i was chartered, oh and in the tender at no point did the buyer request a qualified accountant.......

I have posted a similar thread on the AAT forums to see what the response was, interesting so far, just wanted to see what the UKBF's accountants and non accountants thought about this?

Many thanks

Martin

 

[elaine@cheapaccounting]

Jenni will answer this one for you.

 

[MyAccountantOnline]

Now this is probably going to start some arguements but i want to know the UKBF's User thoughts on calling your self a Qualified accountant.

Martin

Hi Martin

This one will rattle on for ages and ages, and the problem is our Government refuse to legislate and hence anyone can call themselves an accountant.

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of that one, personally I always wonder why members of the Association of Accounting Technicians call themselves accountants when the qualification is an Accounting Technician. I say that as an AAT, ATT and ACCA member, and mean no disrepect to any fellow AAT members.

I actually think the name AAT is outdated and needs changing.

 

[Zeno]

Oh God, here goes:-

Most of the industry but particularly practice, does not regard AAT as being a qualified accountant.

This may be an old fashioned view but it is shared by much of the profession.

I will make absoultely clear that this in no way suggests that AATs cannot make excellent accountants but this is more down to their training & experience as opposed to their qualification.

 

[Jenni384]

Thanks Elaine.

Manukau - I'm also an AAT MiP and I'm an accountant.

The legal fact is though, anyone is allowed to call themselves an accountant.

I would suggest that a person is an accountant when they've proved themself to be one, through workplace experience and study.

What is a technician, anyway? Someone who can do the technical work. Well, that's what's required! I can't think I've ever seen a self employed CAT/AAT call themselves an Accounting Technician. Personally, I think the reason the AAT chose the name to not include the word 'Accountant' was so as to not annoy the chartered bodies. The Institue of Financial Accountants is another non-chartered accountancy body and their qualifications are very similar to the AAT.

It's all semantics. Nobody has ever queried it with me.

 

[Manukau]

Hi Martin

Association of Accounting Technicians call themselves accountants when the qualification is an Accounting Technician.
I actually think the name AAT is outdated and needs changing.

I know what you mean, but with MIP Status you are licensed to perform duties that and ACCA or ACA could also do, so we should be called accountants

nice to see that some one who is ACCA doens't try to belittle the AAT !

 

[Jenni384]

I actually think the name AAT is outdated and needs changing.

Hear hear!

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

Is signing off an audit still the sole remit of ACA and ACCA (and them public sector wotsits!)?

 

[Jenni384]

Is signing off an audit still the sole remit of ACA and ACCA (and them public sector wotsits!)?

Yes.

[insert extra required characters here]

 

[Manukau]

Oh God, here goes:-

Most of the industry but particularly practice, does not regard AAT as being a qualified accountant.

This may be an old fashioned view but it is shared by much of the profession.

I will make absoultely clear that this in no way suggests that AATs cannot make excellent accountants but this is more down to their training & experience as opposed to their qualification.

this is the cunch of it.....

But the Qualification teaches you and examines you on how to prepare financial statements, Tax returns (is you wish) etc, its not just oooh i can do t accounts so why is this dated opinion of it.....

 

[MyAccountantOnline]

Oh God, here goes:-

Most of the industry but particularly practice, does not regard AAT as being a qualified accountant.

This may be an old fashioned view but it is shared by much of the profession.

I think your right Zeno, and is it not because of the name Association of Accounting Technicians - it needs an overhaul, a re-brand!

It must confuse the hell out of Jo Public a professional body called the Association of Accounting Technicians whose members are called Accountants.:|

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

this is the cunch of it.....

But the Qualification teaches you and examines you on how to prepare financial statements, Tax returns (is you wish) etc, its not just oooh i can do t accounts so why is this dated opinion of it.....

What are AAT & ATT requirements re CPD? Are they similar to that for ACCA and ACA?

 

[Jenni384]

this is the cunch of it.....

But the Qualification teaches you and examines you on how to prepare financial statements, Tax returns (is you wish) etc, its not just oooh i can do t accounts so why is this dated opinion of it.....

I'm going to stick my neck out here.

The qualification is good. BUT it is not enough to go into practice without GOOD practice experience. There is a lot more a person needs to learn, in practical experience and knowledge before a qualified AAT is ready to be a MiP.

I have to confess I've seen postings on the AAT forums from MiPs who don't know some of the basics and that worries me. The qualification is good but I think the AAT need to have stricter rules on proving experience before granting practicing certificates.

 

[Zeno]

I don't think anyone would disagree that ACCA/ICAS/ICAEW are all higher level qualifications but what this means in practice is open to debate.

I am honestly not sure myself. I will admit that if I were recruiting a qualified accountant I would expect only chartered/certified members but I don't know if this is due to anything else than old fashioned prejudice.

 

[Manukau]

What are AAT & ATT requirements re CPD? Are they similar to that for ACCA and ACA?

not sure about the CPd for this year as it is my first year of being MIP i know it is alot stricter, and as im am currently a CIMA studier im not sure of ACCA cpd requirements Nicola HJ can you advise

 

[Jenni384]

What are AAT & ATT requirements re CPD? Are they similar to that for ACCA and ACA?

AAT have CPD requirements. It had an overhaul a year or 3 ago so instead of "put in x hours per year" it became "Assess what you need to keep up to date and improve, make a plan and stick to it." Members have to complete the CPD cycle once a year. Members in Practice like myself have to do it twice a year.

 

[MyAccountantOnline]

nice to see that some one who is ACCA doens't try to belittle the AAT !

I actually think the AAT is more relevant to small general practice firms than ACCA and have the uttmost respect for fellow AAT members. Its madness that the AAT dont do something about the name.

 

[elaine@cheapaccounting]

Did the OP asked - who can call them selves a

Qualified Accountant

As we know anyone can call themselves an accountant but a qualified accountant is one of the CCAB things isn't it.

Rightly or wrongly thems is the facts I think.

 

[Manukau]

I'm going to stick my neck out here.

The qualification is good. BUT it is not enough to go into practice without GOOD practice experience. There is a lot more a person needs to learn, in practical experience and knowledge before a qualified AAT is ready to be a MiP.

I have to confess I've seen postings on the AAT forums from MiPs who don't know some of the basics and that worries me. The qualification is good but I think the AAT need to have stricter rules on proving experience before granting practicing certificates.

Agree with you there should be more put in place to ensure that MIP status is given only to those that can prove the professional comptentance or have the experience.

 

[Zeno]

To try and redeem myself and explain more clearly, is it because of the relatively few AATs in practice? Am I wrong in thinking most obtain the qualification and are happy to continue to work as technicians?

 

[Manukau]

Did the OP asked - who can call them selves a

Qualified Accountant

As we know anyone can call themselves an accountant but a qualified accountant is one of the CCAB things isn't it.

Rightly or wrongly thems is the facts I think.

Well this is what i want to know at the end of the day is a regulated term?

 

[MyAccountantOnline]

The qualification is good. BUT it is not enough to go into practice without GOOD practice experience. There is a lot more a person needs to learn, in practical experience and knowledge before a qualified AAT is ready to be a MiP.

Absolutely but that is so true of any professional qualification, in my opinion they are all almost useless without real practice experience.

Its why for example ACCA insist on practical experience before they give a member a practising certificate.

 

[Jenni384]

To try and redeem myself and explain more clearly, is it because of the relatively few AATs in practice? Am I wrong in thinking most obtain the qualification and are happy to continue to work as technicians?

There are more of us in practice than you think. Many AAT folk go on to get employment so it's less of an issue. However there are lots of AATs with successful accountancy practices, though I believe most of the MiPs are sole practitioners and a lot focus on bookkeeping. It's a versatile qualification.

I'm of the (very generalised) opinion that once someone's been in practice for a decent number of years, the qualification gets less important and the practical experience and CPD make for a much more level playing field.

 

[Jenni384]

Its why for example ACCA insist on practical experience before they give a member a practising certificate.

So do the AAT. But they aren't as strict as others.

 

[Zeno]

I'm of the (very generalised) opinion that once someone's been in practice for a decent number of years, the qualification gets less important and the practical experience and CPD make for a much more level playing field.

I do agree to an extent ignoring the registered auditor issue but I would expect that the quality control for the chartered/certified bodies is more rigorous than for ATT (following on from the initial membership requirements).

Other than that of course, what you learned on whatever course you did in your youth probably has as much relevance now to accounting/tax as the prevailing fashions then have now too (although I do still have my pastel sport coat with the sleeves rolled up).

 

[elaine@cheapaccounting]

Saying you are an accountant is not regulated.


Saying you are a qualified accountant is not regulated (to my knowledge) but implies you are a member of an accounting body.

Jenni will jump on me if I am wrong but as AAT you can call yourself an accountant but not a qualified accountant.

Jenni - over to you

 

[Jenni384]

I do agree to an extent ignoring the registered auditor issue but I would expect that the quality control for the chartered/certified bodies is more rigorous than for ATT (following on from the initial membership requirements).

Other than that of course, what you learned on whatever course you did in your youth probably has as much relevance now to accounting/tax as the prevailing fashions then have now too (although I do still have my pastel sport coat with the sleeves rolled up).

Pastel?!?!?! :|

I don't know what the chartered QC is like so can't comment. I heard all professional bodies are mostly useless but are happy to take your money and do look into things if a complaint is made about a member

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

My Husband's experience is I think one that tends to take these debates from technicalities about names and labels, but onto the tables (and into the wallets) of our clients.

My Husband, before he met me, had an "accountant". The "accountant" traded through a limited company, he was a technician. Everything he signed, he signed as "accountant".

Hubby bought and sold secondhand furniture. In his first year he went over the VAT threshold, his accountant advised him he needed to be vat registered, and prepared vat returns on the basis of 7/47 of turnover was deemed to be vat, and the purchases (of secondhand furniture) had no VAT on. Hubby therefore basically incurred a full 17.5% VAT rate with no inputs to offset (other than a bit of fuel).

Fast foward 8 years later (notice the 8!) and I meet hubby, he's moaning about VAT, and I said well that's wrong - why aren't you on the secondhand margin scheme?

Problem was that the "accountant" despite having full knowledge of booking, accounts, and personal tax returns, had no knowledge of any of the more unusual, irregular of less used VAT schemes. And you could probably safely carry that assumption over onto anything to do with tax too.

The problem is that clients do not have these detailed levels of knowledge, that's why them employ an accountant, and they therefore assume that their accountant, particularly if a "qualified accountant" has that knowledge (or at an absolute least minimum the knowledge to know that they need to refer it on to an expert).

THis is where clients get let down. And my answer to the whole debate is, if you don't know the ins and outs of the less common tax and vat regulations, and you don't have CPD that would keep you up to date and informed of all the minutea of details in these areas, then no, you should not call yourself a "qualified accountant" as it misleads the client and gives them false expectations. You should trade as accounting services providers, or book-keepers, and highlight to the client in an annual contract that you recommend that they consult fully with someone appropriately qualified to ensure full VAT and tax compliance.

Because this is the bit that costs the clients real serious money. The overpaid tax, the unmade claims, or even worse, the underpaid tax and VAT, the investigations, interest claims and penalties.

I think that some people trading as "accountants" that aren't appropriately qualified have forgotten that oversights, errors and misdeclarations due to a lack of knowledge can hav very expensive and far reaching effects for their clients. It is very easy when dealing with accounts, tax, PAYE etc to forget that those numbers actually represent people's livelihoods and ability to pay their mortgages and keep their families.

My uncle also had a similar situation, whereby after dealing with the same "accountant" for 10 years quite happily was upset to be presented with a huge VAT bill after a vat investigation. His "accountant"'s response - "yes, I never really understood what you were doing with that vat scheme"

There you go. My twopenceworth.

 

[Big Pete]

Thanks Elaine.

Manukau - I'm also an AAT MiP and I'm an accountant.

The legal fact is though, anyone is allowed to call themselves an accountant.

I would suggest that a person is an accountant when they've proved themself to be one, through workplace experience and study.

What is a technician, anyway? Someone who can do the technical work. Well, that's what's required! I can't think I've ever seen a self employed CAT/AAT call themselves an Accounting Technician. Personally, I think the reason the AAT chose the name to not include the word 'Accountant' was so as to not annoy the chartered bodies. The Institue of Financial Accountants is another non-chartered accountancy body and their qualifications are very similar to the AAT.

It's all semantics. Nobody has ever queried it with me.

Can i be an accountant then .. woo hoo another feather in my book, i have done my own accounts for years ,

so legaly can i say i am an accountant

 

[Jenni384]

Saying you are an accountant is not regulated.


Saying you are a qualified accountant is not regulated (to my knowledge) but implies you are a member of an accounting body.

Jenni will jump on me if I am wrong but as AAT you can call yourself an accountant but not a qualified accountant.

Jenni - over to you

I don't know.

I don't think I've ever referred to myself as a 'qualified accountant'. I just say 'accountant.' If someone asks my quals, I say AAT. Simple as that.

There are no 'rules' on calling yourself a qualified accountant as far as I'm aware. Non-chartered can't call themselves chartered of course, but I don't think 'qualified' has been specified. I don't think AAT issue guidelines on what you are or are not allowed to call yourself (or if they have, I've never seen them!)

IFA and AAT are very similar qualifications. One is technically an accountant, the other is a technician. But there's no difference in reality.

The AAT discussion on it is here for anyone who is interested.

Edit - as someone said on the other thread "I'm not going to describe myself as unqualified either". I think that's about right!

 

[elaine@cheapaccounting]

Can i be an accountant then .. woo hoo another feather in my book, i have done my own accounts for years ,

so legaly can i say i am an accountant

yes you can.

If the term was regulated then e.g. turf accountant would come unstuck.

Anyone can set up office today and say I am an accountant - I come to do your books.

Obviously they would make a right pigs ear of it

But then the argument goes that some qualified accountants would do the same.

 

[Philip Hoyle]

Experience is definitely the key rather than qualifications. I say that with over 20 years membership of the ACCA - when I first qualified I thought it was qualification that mattered - how wrong I was but I didn't know that until many years later. I didn't start up practising on my own until I'd been working in practice for around 15 years - that's 15 years of working in five different chartered accountancy practices, at different levels of seniority, doing different types of work, and working on different types of client. It was only after 15 years of doing that that I felt I had enough experience to start my own practice - during those 15 years, my qualification became less and less relevant and my experience became more relevant. Even 10 years ago, when I first start up on my own, I was still learning and gaining more experience.

My point is that it isn't what you know that matters, it knowing what you don't know that is the fundamental factor - to take the example above, I don't know the secondhand margin scheme as I've never had a client who could use it, but I know it exists and that I don't know enough about it to properly advise a client if I were asked - what I do know is that I'd have to research it before I gave any advice or I would have to turn away the client.

To my mind the qualified versus unqualified debate is missing the real issue. What is desperately needed is some form of regulation of all "practising accountants" - the criteria for becoming one being a mix of qualifications and relevant practical experience - i.e. if you've a qualification then you need less practical experience, but if you've no qualification, then you need more practical experience - a kind of way of getting a mix of both, and also with ongoing requirments such as PI insurance, CPD, professional ethics etc. The accountancy bodies are self-serving and have lost the plot, leaving the door wide open to the unscrupulous. We all have to work together and we need a professional regulatory body to bring all suitably qualified/experienced professionals together. It'll never happen of course because of the vested interests of the chartered bodies. What I do like is the approach of the ICPA who are clearly interested in helping the smaller practitioner and bundle CPD and PI insurance as part of their subscription - if only the chartered bodies could do the same.

 

[MyAccountantOnline]

Philip that is one of the best posts I have read for ages and so echos my thoughts and experience too as an FCCA who has worked in practice for 25 years.

 

[Big Pete]

yes you can.

If the term was regulated then e.g. turf accountant would come unstuck.

Anyone can set up office today and say I am an accountant - I come to do your books.

Obviously they would make a right pigs ear of it

But then the argument goes that some qualified accountants would do the same.

Well thats both suprising and at the same time scarey ..so some young business could have somebody who doesnt know what there doing play with there accounts and charge them , and get them in a right state .

doesnt seem right to me

 

[Jenni384]

As Nicola said, an excellent post, Philip.

What I do like is the approach of the ICPA who are clearly interested in helping the smaller practitioner and bundle CPD and PI insurance as part of their subscription - if only the chartered bodies could do the same.

Indeed. A colleague of mine (not David) has handed in his membership of one of the main bodies in favour of the ICPA - fed up with not getting what he feels he should.

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

I think that part of the debate with book-keeping firms, is that they can be highly paranoid that if they refer their clients to an accountant for the advice that they can't provide, that the accountant will poach them.

Whereas if book-keepers actually realised that most accountants HATE doing accounts preparation, there is always a very fruitful ground there for a proper working relationship.

I believe that the perfect balance for most small businesses is to employ an accounting services provider/book-keeper to do the book-keeping, the accounts and in most instances the normal tax returns. And then for the client to meet annually with an accountant (with those documents) for an annual review to discuss business strategy, planning, tax planning, and vat and tax compliance. Probably for most businesses even once every 2 years would be fine. But that meeting every year or so is a heck of a lot cheaper than the losses that could come out of not having that meeting.

 

[MyAccountantOnline]

Whereas if book-keepers actually realised that most accountants HATE doing accounts preparation

I cant agree with you on that one - but thats another argument altogether.

 

[Big Pete]

I think that part of the debate with book-keeping firms, is that they can be highly paranoid that if they refer their clients to an accountant for the advice that they can't provide, that the accountant will poach them.

Whereas if book-keepers actually realised that most accountants HATE doing accounts preparation, there is always a very fruitful ground there for a proper working relationship.

I believe that the perfect balance for most small businesses is to employ an accounting services provider/book-keeper to do the book-keeping, the accounts and in most instances the normal tax returns. And then for the client to meet annually with an accountant (with those documents) for an annual review to discuss business strategy, planning, tax planning, and vat and tax compliance. Probably for most businesses even once every 2 years would be fine. But that meeting every year or so is a heck of a lot cheaper than the losses that could come out of not having that meeting.

Interesting you say the meeting at the end ..

That used to always make me laugh mine was charging like £ 100 an hour to drag me to there offices which was always a pig to park at etc..

we would sit down and hew would say ..

well turnover is down .
and your fuels oils are 10% down on last year .
etc etc.

basically everything i know as sage accounts already tell you that LOL

waste of money and milked for all its worth ...

Do Good bookwork yourself using a decent account package and all you need is a tax accountant forget all the rest..

 

[Philip Hoyle]

Thanks Jenni and Nicola, it's nice to have friends on here

Must admit, I've often been tempted to leave the ACCA and rely on the ICPA but never really had the nerve to carry it through. It just seems that the ICPA wants to help us small practitioners, whilst the ACCA seems to think that I'm interested in what they're doing in Accra - I really struggle to find anything interesting on their website and in their magazines - just all seems completely alien to a small UK practicing accountant.

As for book-keeping, I'll do it for those with very few accounting transactions, i.e. IT consultants and other freelancers as to be honest, it takes less time for me to create their nominal ledger than it does trying to work out what they've done in their own spreadsheet, Sage or Quickbooks, but when it comes to "proper" businesses, i.e. tradesmen, shops etc., I keep well clear and refer clients to a couple of local self-employed book-keepers who do the books and then pass them back to me to do the year end accounts and tax.

I'm a firm believer in knowing what you're good at and sticking to it rather than trying to be all things to all men. It's taken a long time, but I now have a client base that I like, where we have mutual respect, and where we can happily work together. I like going to work in the morning again and don't cringe whenever the phone rings like I used to. In the old days, I'd begrudge spending a day writing up a shop's books, knowing that I wasn't charging my full potential hourly rate and knowing that the client wasn't seeing any benefit. Now I charge what I'm worth for the time I spend on work that needs a qualified/experienced accountant to do it and where the client is getting money's worth or added-value. I fully appreciate that other practices will do things differently, but that's the benefit of freedom to do what we want rather than what we're told.

Perhaps the word "accountant" is too wide? It seems to encompass book-keepers, tax experts, auditors, accounts preparers, business advisers, etc. Is any one person really qualified and experienced enough to fulfil all those roles? I don't think so, so perhaps we need to break down the "accountancy" profession into the separate activities. I.e. if a person is basically an auditor, let's call them an auditor rather than "accountant", likewise if a person is a tax expert, let's call them that rather than an "accountant". It must be very confusing for joe public who doesn't know the in's and out's of the profession.

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

Meetings are the only bit where the accountant can find out what the client has planned. Much in the accountancy/tax worlds can be done far cheaper and more efficiently if a bit of upfront planning is done in advance. Unfortunately, most clients only advise the accountants after the changes have been made.

I agree though that those type of meeting are pointless, and that accountants need to grab hold of the opportunity to give their clients some real value and be pro-active.