Stephen Siddell’s dishonesty led to 16 people losing their jobs while he and his wife, Louise Siddell, took luxury foreign holidays. They even posted photographs of their stay in a six bedroom villa in Cyprus on Facebook boasting, “because we’re worth it”. Liverpool Crown Court heard the couple had lock-up garage in Bromborough, which was an “Aladdin’s cave” full of their expensive furniture and designer goods. 24-year-old Louise Siddell had also used their ill-gotten gains to pay for jewellery and breast enhancement. [Wirral Globe]
Tag: Brits
How Are Accountants Dealing with Their Co-workers Who Are Planning for the Rapture?
Today in Brits worry about the strangest things news, an AccountingWEB UK reader has Rapture fever and wonders if anyone else still down here is going to call it quits come Monday.
The Rapture is upon us (according to a man in the US) so, as shown in the Simpsons, I will soon be ‘left below’, as will, I imagine, many of my fellow board users.
Anyone else have a sudden urge not to do any of their accounts/tax backlogs, given the world as we know it won’t exist on Monday?
For starters, there are plenty of men, women, children and family pets (not just “a man in the US”) that believe that the Son of God will be gracing us with his presence this Saturday and judging by what people are paying for one share of LinkedIn stock, the odds have narrowed that it’s going to happen. That said, I overheared the Big Guy himself say that Saturday ain’t the day. The question is, how do you handle the crazy accountants in your office that are planning for the Rapture? Do you:
A) Mock them openly first thing Monday morning.
B) Claim to know who the identity of the Antichrist (it’s me!).
C) Ask politely, that in the event that the person’s significant other happens to be left behind, if you can hit that.
D) Start digging through their drawers for supplies.
E) Convince them to wait it out in a JIT.
F) Your ideas.
Let’s Try to Match Big 4 Firms to Their Statements About the OFT Inquiry
As we mentioned this morning, Britain’s Office of Fair Trading has determined that the Big 4 isn’t playing fair in the audit market and that it’s time everyone sat down (at roundtables, preferably) to sort this thing out. You’d expect the Big 4 to be a little rankled by this, accused of being benefactors in a game played with a stacked deck but actually, they’re quite comfortable with the situation. Accountancy Age got statements from various people at all the firms in the UK but just for fun, let’s try and identify which statement belongs to which firm. NO PEAKING.
STATEMENT #1:
A […] spokeswoman said the firm was “happy to co-operate” with the inquiry, outlining its ideas on opening up the marketplace.
She said: “We support increased choice in the audit market to enable audit committees to have a wider range of audit firms to choose among in meeting their audit needs and obtaining a high quality audit.
“To this end, we support a number of measures to increase choice, including reinforcing the audit committee’s role in auditor appointments; publication of independent inspection results for all audit firms that are active in listed company audits; removing Big-Four only restrictive covenants from loan agreements; liberalising audit firm ownership rules; and the creation of a single market for audit services in Europe.”
STATEMENT #2:
“We welcome the opportunity to cooperate with the OFT and participate in relevant discussions.
“We welcome all measures that enhance the quality and value of audits and we are supportive of measures that can increase competition and ensure there is – and is seen to be – a level playing field for market participants.”
STATEMENT #3:
“We welcome the OFT’s announcement today, in particular to engage all stakeholders in a programme of round tables and bilateral talks. [The firm] plans to play a constructive and active part in these discussions.”
STATEMENT #4:
A […] spokesman said the firm “welcomed” the inquiry, but said it believes there was already effective competition and pricing in the UK audit market “and look forward to hearing from the OFT its reasons for believing otherwise”.
“It is important to bring to a head the long-running debate on competition and choice, and we support calls for progressive and practical change within the industry.
“In carrying out its work, it is important that the OFT puts audit quality at the heart of the debate. We support a level playing field for all parties, and market-based – not regulatory – intervention.”
First correct answer in the comments will get GC luggage grips (yes, that’s what they are) and other swag that our publisher will gladly send you along with a recipe for Chicken Kiev.
Big Four welcomes OFT inquiry [Accountancy Age]
Woman Insists She Didn’t Rip Off PwC Because She’s a Bad Person But to Hide the Fact That She Was Having an Affair with a Married Partner
When banging your boss, there are certain precautions one must take to ensure that the affair is not discovered. In the case of Angela Tilling, who was jailed for £33,000 in expenses fraud, she claimed “her behaviour was an attempt to prevent John Minard’s wife spotting suspicious payments on his credit card.” Mr. Minard admitted that he had sexual relations with that woman (that’s what I keep hearing in my head) but denied that they had “full intercourse.”
Of course smut isn’t the only part of this story. We learn that Angie reportedly “conned” P. Dubs into spending “£50,000 celebrity appearance at a Christmas party in a bid to boost her popularity,” among other expenses that weren’t kosher. You see, it appears that Angela wasn’t too good at making friends, so she threw around a bunch of the firm’s money so people would think she’s the bee’s knees.
“Some of the money was used to provide entertainment for others because what this lady craved was the respect of others.
“She liked to be the centre of attention, providing days and nights out. She is a lonely lady who bought the friendship and affection of people with whom she worked. It was not salted away for a rainy day.”
The court heard Tilling falsely claimed £2,183 expenses for a 47-head staff lunch at Birmingham’s Hotel Du Vin on December 7, 2004 and £2,146 for a company hotel conference in June 2005.
She blew a strict £25,000 budget when organising the company’s Christmas party on December 22, 2005, fraudulently transferring two £29,375 payments to cover a celebrity guest’s £50,000 appearance fee.
Tilling also falsely claimed a £15,000 payment by lying that she had paid the sum as a deposit to secure the guest, who the prosecution and booking agency refuse to name.
She was also paid a further £5,581.25 in bogus expenses on October 17, 2006 and £3,706 in June that year for Solihull College support staff.
In December 2007 she fraudulently claimed £2,225 for 60 theatre tickets at Birmingham’s Hippodrome – another company outing she organised.
It was all for love.
PricewaterhouseCoopers PA jailed over expenses fraud [Telegraph]
Are the Brits Getting Serious About a Big 4 Antitrust Probe?
Now that everyone (well, not everyone) has fully recovered from Royal Wedding 2011, it’s time to get to the bottom of this.
A U.K. House of Lords committee investigating the financial crisis said in a March report that the firms, which audit 99 of the 100 largest U.K. companies, should be probed by the London- based Office of Fair Trading to determine whether their market dominance wrongfully limits choice. The probe could be the most high-profile for the agency since it investigated banks’ equity underwriting practices — an inquiry that closed without any action being taken.
The OFT would help determine whether loan terms unfairly favor Deloitte LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and KPMG LLP, said Robert Bell, an antitrust lawyer in London with Speechly Bircham. The agency, which has kept the industry under review since 2002, will make a decision on the probe later this month, said spokeswoman Kasia Reardon.
‘Big Four’ Audit Firms May Face U.K. Antitrust Investigation This Month [Bloomberg]
Single Fat Accountant Also a Bit of a Hypocrite, Watches Royal Wedding
A couple of weeks ago, the Single Fat Accountant was suffering from a serious case of Kate and Willy envy. He had called for a blackout of all the Royal Wedding festivities but because he is A) fat; B) single and C) and accountant, the nuptials went on as planned.
Realizing the futility of the situation, SFA eventually succumbed to the pressure of being of loyal British subject (or maybe a party-pooper of a boss) and turned on the teevee to watch the historic event.
Realizing that he might catch some flak for this flip-flop, our hero felt the need to explain his actions:
I was feeling left out by not watching TV. I felt I was going againt the odds with the large proportion of people. It just felt wrong not to watch the wedding. Though my views in previous blog remain unchanged. I am thinking what this says about me:
• I like to belong rather than be the odd one out
• I am bit of a hypocrite!
• I am not strong enough to be an independent thinker.
• I just wanted to see how Kate looked! She looked great.
Kate did look lovely (and catching glimpses of Pippa was a nice bonus) but I can’t help but feel that SFA is buckling like a cheap belt here. On the other hand, it’s conceivable that our fat, lonely friend may have been thrown out of his country had he not complied. If anyone wants to weigh in – being supportive or sharing their own tale of Royal Wedding fever – feel free to do so now.
PwC Partner Has Mixed Feelings on the Royal Wedding
As you may have heard, there was a wedding today in London. It just so happened that this little event landed smack-dab in between Easter and May Day which has resulted in a lot of extra time off for our friends across the pond. While the majority of people are using this alignment of holidays to take long vacations or extended benders, a few people still have to get some work done. The good news is that with so many people away you can enjoy elevator music in solitude, whistle in the john and lose the pants behind the desk in one’s office and not feel anxious that someone could walk in at any time.
The bad news, as one PwC partner explained to the Journal, is that the lack of subordinates can sometimes hinder productivity:
“I am being super efficient while everyone is away, but I keep running into the fact that people I need to get a hold of are not here,” said Hemione Hudson, a partner in the banking division of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in London.
PWC’s London offices would normally have more than 2,500 people passing through on a given day, says Ms. Hudson, but this week, there have been far fewer. Many employees took the opportunity to get away after a busy audit season, she says. That’s meant quicker elevators and no lines for coffee, she says.
Among those remaining behind are her boss, PWC Senior Partner, United Kingdom Ian Powell and “many of the executive board.”
Still, “it’s not so great for business’ bottom lines,” Ms. Hudson points out. April has felt like a very short month, even for those working throughout, she says.
Makes you wonder why people feel pressure to work so much, doesn’t it?
Dilemma: Administrator Concerned About Partners Giving Significant Others No-show Jobs
Today in predicaments from across the pond, a concerned employee wonders if a couple of partners who have given their wife and girlfriend no-show jobs are up to some financial shenanigans. Of course this prospecting employee is thinking about approaching said partners about this. What could go wrong?
The partners of the LLP I work for have added their wife and girlfriend to the payroll of the company even though neither said wife or girlfriend actually work here. I believe the reason being is to reduce profit, partner remuneration etc to ultimately reduce the amount of tax paid by the partners at the end of each financial year.
The ‘salaries’ are fairly low (£16,500 [$27k USD] and £13,000 [$21.4k USD] per annum) and Tax and NI etc is processed as normal through PAYE. One of the ladies even has student loan deductions. Periodically each lady will have a large ‘bonus’ of around £15,000. I assume the payments go directly in the wife/girlfriend’s bank accounts.
I’m sure there must be some sort of law against this as it seems, to me, too obvious to be a loophole. Does anyone one know what these laws are and the repercussions should the partners get caught?
I work as an administrator for the company and rely solely on accounting and payroll software and therefore only have very limited knowledge on the subject. I am hoping to approach the partners on the matter so any help/information would be greatly appreciated 🙂
Maybe this “administrator” has too much time on their hands and is simply jumping to conclusions (which we applaud) but then again, a no-show job is a no-show job. They are violating NCAA rules or anything but for the puritanical types this could seem a little sketchy.
Why Would Fourteen Baker Tilly Partners Give Up Equity for Salary?
This one’s a stumper.
Accountancy Age reports that 14 Baker Tilly partners are giving up their equity stakes to go on salary including “international CEO Geoffrey Barnes, head of IT advisory Richard Spooner, and six partners from the London office.” A spokeswoman told AA that this is simply a change in “remuneration” and the fourteen individuals would remain partners and there “would be no change to client services.”
Riddle me this partners out there: why would a person with an equity stake go back to being a senior manager (i.e. in terms of the compensation structure)? Something doesn’t compute there. Since we’re dealing with the international CEO and head IT advisory, maybe there’s some kind of political or solidarity motive here but the Accountancy Age report is skimpy and its editor Gavin Hinks admits that there isn’t much to go on and gets to speculating:
The big question people are asking is what does it mean? Or does it mean anything at all? There are a number of reasons a partner’s status might change. They may simply no longer want the risk of being partner. The firm may believe profits are too diluted and want fewer partners.
I personally don’t buy the first motive. If they were sick of the risk, why not just leave the firm? There are plenty of jobs out there with better compensation packages. Diluted profits is a little more plausible but the international CEO and head of IT advisory? Why would they opt out? Since the partners in question made this decision themselves, it’s unlikely that this was a punitive measure but perhaps BT had a little bit of an internal email scandal, they were given a multiple choice form of punishment and this was the least severe option? I’ve really got nothing better at this point. People with theories that are slightly above the crackpot level are invited to share.
Brits Call Big 4 Auditors ‘Disconcertingly Complacent’ During Financial Crisis
Not exactly what you would call a compliment. And while they were at it, the House of Lords would like the Office of Fair Trading to investigate why the “Big 4” isn’t a “Global 6” or “Universal 8” or “Dirty Dozen” or something similar.
Of course auditors have claimed that did everything they were legally obligated to do and the HoL admits that’s kindasorta true but not really:
Its report said: “We do not accept the defence that bank auditors did all that was required of them. In the light of what we now know, that defence appears disconcertingly complacent.” It added: “It may be that the Big Four carried out their duties properly in the strictly legal sense, but we have to conclude that, in the wider sense, they did not do so.” Bank auditors and regulators had been guilty of a “dereliction of duty” by not sharing more information with each other on an informal basis before the crisis, the committee claimed. Auditors were either “culpably unaware of the mounting dangers” at banks or they were at fault for not sharing any concerns with supervisors, it added. Either way, auditor complacency had been a “significant contributory factor” in the banking meltdown, the committee said.
So in “the wider sense,” auditors best step up their game. Go forth.
Problem of the Day: Non-smoking, Cheapskate, Immature Newbie Is Cramping My Commute
Since everyone’s distracted by brackets and projectile vomiting in the street, I thought I’d pull another “problem” from our Twisted British Sister site:
So a new ‘man’ (18) started last week and I got chatting to him in the car park as he was loitering waiting for the office to open. It turns out he lives vaguely near me and I, in passing, said that if he was ever stuck trying to get to work (e.g. from rain, hail, wind or snow) he should let me know and I could always swing by and fetch him.
I know – an 18 year-old co-worker? Just go with it:
On Monday he asked if I could bring him to work. Being soft I said ok and gave him a lift. Then home. Then Tuesday to work and back. Yesterday he got in and said ‘Oh, I’ve been thinking, I should pay you for these lifts’. Resigned to my fate as being soft and letting him keep getting lifts I consoled myself thinking ‘Oh well, my petrol is £45 a week, at least he will cut my commuting costs’. I gave him a lift home and he said ‘Is this alright for a weeks worth?’ and gave me a pile of shrapnel. I counted it when I got home and it was £7.91.
I can’t smoke with him in the car as he coughs. I don’t like to have music on as I feel obliged to force conversation. He is 18 and therefore annoying to talk to.
I want him out of my car, but he is nice and I am nice, so how do I do it? If I pushed him out on the dual carriage way would the police take a dim view?
Nothing WORSE than a non-smoker and a cheapskate, amiright? Suggestions for this chap are now welcome (if you’re still sober enough to type, that is).