In Tuesday’s QOTD someone did not have kind words for Leo Kehoe, a Queens CPA. Specifically, “Watch out for this fraudulent scumbag! … He will botch up your tax returns and forget to submit them.” Scumbag? Fine. “Botch up” and “forget to submit” are also tolerable. Stuff like that happens (right?). What no CPA needs or wants, is their name associated with “fraudulent.”
Anyway, someone had a bad enough encounter with Kehoe that it demanded these words for anyone searching out both a CPA and perhaps some NSA coitus.
Mr Kehoe should be able to rest a little easier now as the Gothamist reported yesterday that a certain someone or someones has a completely different opinion on his services, “Leo Kehoe is a great CPA. He charged me a lower fee than what I had payed with someone else and he did a much better job,” and this one from yesterday, “Leo Kehoe: Much better than Cats. I’m going to see him again and again!”
Depending on your point of view, the “Cats” compliment may be worth far more than the $4 million that Kehoe isn’t likely to get but since accountants seem to be hung up on money far more than cultural comparisons, we expect him to continue moving forward with the lawsuit.
Accountant Sues Craigslist Over Negative Rant [Gothamist]
Apparently Newman was thought to be a little Patrick Byrne-ish on this particular point:
These are views that I have been expressing for some years, although many have questioned the prevalence of such clauses and indeed some have sought to deny their existence.
It was comforting therefore for me to read in the report published by the UK’s Financial Reporting Council in October 2009 entitled ‘Choice in the UK Audit Market’ that reference was made to restrictions in loan covenants. The report from the FRC noted:
‘..it is too early to determine how widespread such obligations are; however, the FRC continues to receive examples of banks imposing loan covenants with ‘Big 4 only’ clauses, including one which imposed a higher rate of interest if the borrowing company chose a non-Big 4 auditor.’
Surely there is now sufficient evidence to recognise that such clauses are a potential constraint on choice in the market place and regulators should be urged to ban them.
So despite the lack of evidence that these obligations are widespread, this remains a matter of “urgency,” according to Newman. There are examples, people. That should be enough for you. The man is trying to build a Global 6 firm after all. Kindly throw in a little additional bank regulation to help him out.