Qualified v. Unqualified

System
System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
edited June 9 in General accounting discussion
A news item on AccountingWeb states:<BR><BR>"Qualified or unqualified - what's the difference? <BR><BR>Preliminary talks are taking place between the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) and the Inland Revenue about a potential campaign to raise public awareness of the differences between unqualified and qualified accountants". <BR><BR><BR>On 5 May 2004 I posted the following comment (74 people had already made their comments - and doubtless more will follow):<BR><BR>Keep it simple<BR><BR>The Money Laundering Regulations are set to 'sort the wheat from the chaff' - it's just a matter of time. And I doubt that the 'wheat' will all be Qualifieds and the 'chaff' all Unqualifieds. <BR><BR>In the meantime, keep it simple, by insisting that anyone who trades as an Accountant or Book-keeper etc must have mandatory professional indemnity insurance.<BR><BR>N S Daws<BR>

Comments

  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Am I wrong in assuming that licensed and registered AAT members are not classed as 'unqualified'? Otherwise, all the recognition we have with financial institutions in signing off accounts will be of no value? Can someone from the AAT comment on this?
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Interesting point. And one which seems to be exercising mind of other non-ICAEW people (see below, latest posting - Marianne Pitts -to AccountingWeb). Personally, I would contend that AAT's are well qualified to offer their services as Accountants to the general public - it is simply a matter of the Association 'getting in on the act' and making sure that it delivers the correct PR image on behalf of members.<BR><BR>From: marianne pitts <BR>Date: 6th May 2004<BR>Title: ICAEW members are not the ONLY qualified accountants<BR><BR>In the phrase "differentiating Chartered Accountants from unqualified<BR>accountants" The ICAEW have implied that "qualified" means "Chartered" and so far the Inland Revenue has not demurred.<BR><BR>If the public are to be encouraged to employ "qualified" accountants to help with their tax, and this has the blessing of CIR, then other<BR>qualifications such as ACCA should enjoy equal status.<BR>
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Surely a qualified accountant is one qualified as chartered or certified? Does AAT not mean you are a qualified accounting technician?<BR><BR>Annette
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Anette,<BR><BR>Presumably you are providing accountancy services to the general public - therefore you are an Accountant. And the AAT must support that - otherwise you will be consigned (by the ICAEW/CIR) to the ranks of the "unqualified". <BR><BR>Neil Daws
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Neil,<BR><BR>If the AAT started calling for their members to be known as accountants you would see the remaining sponsoring bodies pulling away from the AAT and possibly setting up rival support qualifications. <BR><BR>Better a premier Accounting Technician qualification than a laughable Accounting qualification. Most AAT's recognise this and progress onto chartered, i.e. ACA, ACCA, CIMA or the like.<BR><BR>Seamus<BR>
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Seamus,<BR><BR>Unless the AAT grasps this particular nettle - as did the Australian Accounting Technicians many years ago - the ICAEW will have a monopoly on the term "qualified" in terms of accountancy. The general public will be directed to them as the only people who are able to deal properly with accountancy and tax matters. Everybody else, including the AAT, are likely to find themselves out of the ball game - classed as "unqualified". What happens then to your business if only "qualified" Accountants are allowed to provide accountancy and tax services to the general public?<BR><BR>The AAT has made great strides in terms of recognition over recent years - but if it now decides to stand still, it will all be to no avail.<BR><BR>Neil
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Neil,<BR><BR>To my mind what you need to do is to push for a campaign to have the AAT recognised as qualified for the purposes of Revenue. But to compare the AAT qualified Accounting Technician against a chartered accountant is to do no service to the AAT qualification.<BR><BR>Regards<BR>Seamus
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Seamus,<BR><BR>Absolutely.<BR><BR>Have a look at the debate on AccountingWeb.<BR><BR>Regards<BR>Neil
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    aat members are not as qualified as acca members etc as they have'nt passed exams at a higher level thus having less knowledge(not taking into account experience). how can aat members compare themselves to acca members for example? would'nt eveyone study aat if it were not better than the others?
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Thanks Neil,<BR><BR>However, I've looked at the questions required in the profile and declined to take part. ;-)<BR><BR>Seamus
  • System
    System Posts: 100,537 🤖 Admin 🤖
    Qualified v. Unqualified

    Hi, another Neil here!<BR><BR>Just had a brief look at the main article. One paragraphs states <br><br><< <i>The Institute (ICAEW) would like to work together with the Revenue, and other accountancy bodies, to develop publicity aimed at promoting the benefits of using professional firms</i> >><br><br><BR>This does suggest that ICAEW arent necessarily trying to grap the monopoly on "qualified". However, all accountancy bodies have a duty to their members to make sure they are properly represented in such an issue.<BR><BR>Neil H

Categories

Privacy Policy