So it's the Monday after the Super Bowl and most of you are suffering from some kind of hangover. Whether it was caused by food, booze or you're simply wallowing in a lack of a Peyton Manning comeback, this day should really be a national holiday (even non-football fans can agree on that notion). Melancholy, indigestion and cocktail flues aside, the other certainty that comes with the SB is gambling. And we're not talking friendly-poker-game gambling, we're talking recklessly wagering on every single aspect of the biggest spectacle in sports gambling. Two of the most creative wagers we've seen so far was the betting on rating for the Focus on the Family (featuring Tim Tebow and Mamma Tebow!) ad and the betting the spread between Kim Kardashian's measurements and Reggie Bush's rushing and receiving production. Both of which are completely ridiculous, yet sheer genius. Regardless of where you put your money yesterday (we took the overs on Archie Manning appearances and lost), there are plenty of big winners from yesterday's game. And now that we have a government who is feverishly trying to close a deficit gap, the question remains: will the IRS more aggressively pursue taxpayers for their unreported gambling winnings? If you're a degenerate loser than this obviously doesn't apply to you but if you're lucky enough to find some extra scratch in your pocket, you're legally obligated to report that income next year. Our government is looking for solutions anywhere possible, so it's entirely possible that you could find yourself on the wrong end of an IRS-issued shotgun if you're leaving your winnings off next year's 1040. Look, it's not that crazy and the pols need all the ideas they can get. You've been warned.
Related Posts
Will CFO’s Audit Fee Benchmark Tool Help Keep the Big 4 Honest on Fees?
- GoingConcern
- April 6, 2010
This story is republished from CFOZone, where you’ll find news, analysis and professional networking tools for finance executives.
There’s a bit of a tiff going on over at my former place of employment as a result of the cover story in the latest issue of CFO Magazine on the recent fall in auditor’s fees.
Some critics seem to fear that the phenomenon will be encouraged by a new benchmarking tool the website unveiled on April 1.
For a fee of $1,200, the tool allows companies to compare the fees that their peers pay for auditors. The process should be both quicker and more comprehensive than the requests for proposals now put out by many companies trying to figure out what they should be paying.
Accounting mavens David Albrecht and Lynn Turner, however, seem to worry that such an exercise will lead to the further commoditization of audits, and so to lower quality financial reporting, even though there’s no evidence the increased fees we saw in the wake of the Sarbanes Oxley Act did anything to improve its quality. Lehman Brothers, anyone?
Yet after the article appeared, Turner sent around comments on his list serve saying it contained several “factual inaccuracies” and that “a firm cannot do the same amount of work with these lower fees without seeing a huge reduction in profits.”
One problem here, it seems to me, is that we’re talking about an oligopoly, which invariably skews the normal effects of supply and demand. Albrecht concedes that the industry is an oligopoly but doesn’t make a cogent point about the significance of that. And he misses the other complication, which is that SarBox not only required auditors to review a company’s internal financial controls as well as its financial results, but also prevented auditors from offering audits as loss leaders for their more profitable consulting services. Now auditors can’t offer both services to the same clients. So audits have to stand on their own two feet.
Turner gets this point, though he confuses the chronology of the regulatory events involved. And he seems to suggest the article is flawed in the conclusion it draws about it, without saying how.
Here’s the point. If, in fact, the extra work SarBox required inflated auditors’ profits, why shouldn’t CFOs be able to make sure they’re getting what they pay for?
And the apparent assumption that benchmarking will inevitably lead companies to push for lower fees seems a bit shaky to me. As CFO.com’s editorial director Tim Reason points out, the process may instead merely keep auditors on their toes. Are Albrecht and Turner arguing that opacity is necessary for the public good, so auditors can pad their fees with impunity? Sorry, but that just doesn’t compute.
In an email to me this morning, Tim wrote: “We think finance executives and audit committees will benefit from having an independent, trusted editorial source provide them with a quick way to benchmark their fees-and make sure they are neither too high nor too low.”
Too low? Sure. You get what you pay for.
Tim also points out that there are no advertisers or sponsors for the tool. “It is a pure editorial offering being made directly to our readers, giving them information they’ve been asking us for years.”
Now there’s a radical idea.
Share this:
Research: You Might Get Passed Over For a Raise If You WFH, Especially If You’re a Man
- Going Concern News Desk
- April 10, 2024
Some not so good news coming out of University of Warsaw this month: people who […]
Share this:
Friday Footnotes: Accounting AI Explodes; SOX Compliance Sux; KPMG Gets on a List | 6.17.22
- Going Concern News Desk
- June 17, 2022
The 2022 Client Advisory Services (CAS) Benchmark Survey is now open for participation [CPA.com] Participation […]