Bríd Heffernan provides an update one year after the Monitoring Group issued its proposed reforms to international standard-setting boards. In July 2020, the Monitoring Group issued its much-anticipated paper outlining reforms to the international standard-setting boards – namely, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) and the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). This article will reflect on the reforms proposed in the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper and analyse where the reforms stand one year on. The journey so far The Monitoring Group is a group of international financial institutions and regulatory bodies committed to advancing the public interest in international audit standard-setting and audit quality. The last set of reforms faced by the standard-setting boards were agreed to in 2003 by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and the Monitoring Group. These 2003 reforms created the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB), which was tasked with increasing investor and stakeholder confidence in the standard-setting boards and ensuring that standards are responsive to the public interest. The 2003 reforms put IESBA and IAASB under the oversight of the PIOB, thus making them independent of IFAC. This, in turn, led to IFAC providing support to the standard-setting boards. The proposed July 2020 reforms do not change this structure, but they do propose changes to address the Monitoring Group’s concerns. Effectiveness reviews were built into the 2003 reforms. Every five years or so, the Monitoring Group conducts an effectiveness review and makes recommendations to improve the system. In the early reviews, the recommendations were made and agreed upon, and enhancements were implemented. However, the most recent review in 2015 resulted in the 2017 Monitoring Group consultation paper. Since then, there has been extensive discussion between the Monitoring Group, IFAC and other stakeholders culminating in the issuance of the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper. Monitoring Group concerns The July 2020 Monitoring Group paper titled Strengthening the International Audit and Ethics Standard-Setting System set out recommendations for reforming the standard-setting process. Below is an overview of the Monitoring Group’s main concerns that led to the recommendations, which are also discussed later in this article. The public interest is not given sufficient weight throughout the standard-setting process. Stakeholder confidence in the standards is adversely affected as a result of the perception of undue influence of the accountancy profession on the following two grounds: IFAC’s role in funding and supporting the standard-setting boards and running the nominations process; and Audit firms and professional accountancy organisations providing the majority of standard-setting board members. Standards are not as timely and relevant as they need to be in a rapidly changing environment. IFAC’s response As IFAC operationally runs the standard-setting boards, the Monitoring Group’s concerns and recommendations directly impact IFAC. In an update to its members, IFAC’s Chief Executive, Kevin Dancey, stated that IFAC was focused on agreeing on a workable set of changes that would enhance stakeholders’ trust and confidence in the standard-setting process. These reforms also provide an opportunity for IFAC to address its own issues with the current process, which are: That PIOB members are almost exclusively from a regulatory background. IFAC believes that the PIOB should have a multi-stakeholder composition and perspective. That the PIOB must be more transparent, and there is a need for clarity on its role and the role of the standard-setting boards and how the PIOB carries out its mandate. 2020 recommendations  The July 2020 Monitoring Group paper proposals retain the two standard-setting boards with the same mandates, and they will be retained in a similar size (16 members, down from 18 members). The respective roles of the PIOB and the standard-setting boards are also clarified. The Monitoring Group’s proposals clarify that the standard-setting boards are responsible for developing, approving and issuing the standards. The role of the PIOB is oversight. Combined with making the workings of the PIOB more transparent, this is a step forward. Responsibility for ensuring that the standards were responsive to the public interest was a source of confusion in the past. Was this the responsibility of the standard-setting boards or the PIOB? The July 2020 Monitoring Group paper contains a public interest framework, which confirms that it is the standard-setting boards’ responsibility to certify that the standards are responsive to the public interest. The PIOB will also have to certify that the standards are responsive to the public interest as part of its oversight function. Both the PIOB and the standard-setting boards will have a multi-stakeholder composition. For the PIOB, this means that its members will not simply be representatives of the Monitoring Group members. And for the standard-setting boards, this will ensure a diversity of views at the standard-setting table. Recognition of the significant role of both IFAC and the accountancy profession is a key improvement over the 2017 consultation paper. Current practitioners can still become members of the standard-setting boards, up to a maximum of five practitioners. Impact of the changes on IFAC With respect to IFAC, its ongoing role has been acknowledged in the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper: IFAC will continue to provide operational support to the standard-setting boards, the only difference being that it will be set out in a formal service level agreement. IFAC’s role in adopting and implementing the standards, promoting the standards, and monitoring their adoption and implementation has been acknowledged as an important ongoing responsibility. There will be a change to the nominations process for IAASB and IESBA members, however. The process is currently run by the IFAC Nominating Committee, which is chaired by the IFAC president. To ensure adequate independence in the nominations process and ensure good governance, the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper recommends that the nominations process sit under the supervision of the PIOB. The legal structure will also change. Currently, the standard-setting boards are committees of IFAC. The July 2020 Monitoring Group paper calls for the standard-setting boards to sit under a separate legal entity, independent to IFAC. Furthermore, changes have been recommended to the staffing model for the standard-setting boards. The proposals call for an increased staff complement and for staff to have greater responsibility for drafting the standards with less responsibility in the hands of the standard-setting boards. Since IFAC provides operational support for the standard-setting boards, this request for an increased staff complement will impact IFAC. Transition planning phase It was assumed by many observers that, with the issuance of the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper, all would be known. However, five years after the initial review, the reform process is only at the end of the beginning, seeing as many of the details remain unresolved. According to IFAC, the July 2020 paper is a significant improvement on the proposals outlined in the 2017 consultation paper. It is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It sets out several high-level recommendations and principles that can be worked with. Right now, IFAC and the Monitoring Group are in the transition planning phase of the reforms – but many outstanding items must yet be worked through. The transition planning phase consists of IFAC and the Monitoring Group developing an implementation plan by participating in 26 workstreams. The goal is to work through all outstanding issues and finalise the recommendations in 2021. The implementation of the recommendations will then take place over the next three years, up to 2024. The changes will be phased in to ensure a smooth transition and no disruption to the current standard-setting process. Funding of the reforms  It is clear from the July 2020 paper that there is no new funding model. The profession’s resources were stretched before COVID-19, and this limitation will be exacerbated post-pandemic. This represents a significant fiscal constraint on implementing the reforms. IFAC’s funding for 2021 is down 13.5% from 2018, and there is no improvement anticipated in the funding outlook beyond 2021. Therefore, a key challenge is to reconcile the cost of the Monitoring Group’s recommendations to the funding available. Next steps As noted, the process is currently in the transition planning phase. The goal is to resolve all outstanding issues in 2021 while reconciling the cost of the recommendations to the funding available and reaching a deal on the phased implementation of agreed changes by 2024. While there is a long way to go before the reforms are implemented, it is positive to see progress that ultimately serves the public interest. Bríd Heffernan is Associations & Institutions Leader at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Jane O’Hanlon explains the common tax-related issues facing members in business and how to deal with them before Revenue comes knocking. As a tax advisor working in a specialised tax practice, I encounter similar tax issues in various businesses. This article will focus on the most critical issues and help ensure that your business is tax compliant. What should I do when Revenue knocks on my door? The answer to this depends on the nature of the knock! Any correspondence issued by Revenue must be looked at carefully to understand the purpose of the query. A letter might issue from Revenue with queries due to an incorrect entry on a tax return (referred to as an ‘Aspect Query’ letter). Where a business files a VAT return and is in a VAT recovery position, standard VAT verification letters are often issued by Revenue seeking documentation to support the VAT refund due. This type of correspondence is routine and while it should be dealt with promptly, it should not result in undue concern. If an error is discovered as you prepare your response, it is usually possible to make a ‘qualifying disclosure’ to Revenue. By making a qualifying disclosure, you can reduce the penalties payable, avoid prosecution, and avoid publication in the list of tax defaulters. A disclosure is unprompted if it is made before notification of a Revenue audit is received. Any disclosures in relation to items covered by the audit made after the audit notice is received is prompted, and the penalty reductions for unprompted disclosures are higher than for prompted disclosures. However, Revenue recently indicated that it intends to move disclosures made by a business under an ‘Aspect Query’ to the ‘Prompted Disclosure’ category. Although publication can still be avoided, higher rates will be applicable if penalties apply. When a Revenue audit letter issues, depending on the tax head and the period covered, the taxpayer should conduct a full review of all tax matters. Common problems include businesses making cash payments to casual staff without PAYE, incorrect claiming of VAT input credits, incorrect operation of benefit-in-kind (BIK), and incorrectly claiming a tax deduction for income or corporation tax purposes. When that audit letter is received, it is essential to at once consider whether the business will need to make a prompted qualifying disclosure. If it does, it can write to the Revenue auditor requesting time to prepare the disclosure. In my experience, the time spent at this stage is well worth it as it often results in the audit running more smoothly and concluding promptly. It is not in the interest of any business to have an audit process continue any longer than it needs to. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that a full disclosure, if needed, is made and that all supporting documentation is gathered and available to the auditor. Cooperation is the best policy. * Review your tax compliance position on VAT and PAYE. Cooperation is the best policy when dealing with Revenue and, if necessary, make a voluntary disclosure. What VAT can I recover? At a high level, VAT can only be recovered by a business providing VATable products or services. This means that the business charges VAT on sales to customers. You may think that a business providing only products or services subject to VAT can recover all VAT charged by its suppliers. However, that is not the case. It is never possible to recover VAT on the purchase of food and drink items for use in an office kitchen. I frequently encounter cases where VAT is being reclaimed on bottled water purchased by the business, for example. Similarly, if a business owner purchases items for personal use, VAT should not be recovered as that purchase has not been made to provide taxable (i.e. VATable) supplies. Furthermore, if a company carries on a trade and owns several rental properties, you must determine if the expense relates to the trade or the rental properties. For example, if repairs are carried out on the business premises and all supplies by the business are liable to VAT, the VAT charged can be recovered. However, if repairs are carried out on a rented residential apartment owned by the business, the VAT cannot be recovered as the rental income from the residential apartment is not liable to VAT. In summary, consideration must be given to each invoice to determine if the business can recover the VAT charged. In addition, businesses can recover 20% of the VAT incurred on the acquisition or leasing of a car, provided it is used for business purposes at least 60% of the time. Businesses must also be aware that, in most cases, the supplier will not have charged VAT when the business purchases goods or services from outside Ireland. The business must self-account for Irish VAT at the appropriate rate and claim an input credit if it is entitled to do so. If foreign VAT has been charged, the business should satisfy itself that this is correct before payment is made to the supplier. A business cannot include an input credit in an Irish VAT return for foreign VAT charged. A business can only include a claim for a VAT input credit where a valid VAT invoice has been received. Accounts payable staff should be trained to ensure that all invoices are valid VAT invoices before settling them. It is easier to seek a proper invoice from a supplier when the invoice has not yet been paid. * Check that you are correctly claiming VAT input credit on cars and foreign purchases. How long do I need to keep documentation for? In general, documents must be kept for six years after the tax year in question. However, that is not as straightforward as it may sound. For example, I know of one situation where an individual claimed capital allowances on a building, with the capital allowances available over seven years. The tax return covering the sixth year in which the allowances were available was selected for verification three years after the return was filed, and Revenue sought copies of documentation to confirm the nature and the availability of the allowances. In this case, the taxpayer needed to provide documentation from nine years earlier. The key point from a tax perspective is that the burden of proof rests with the taxpayer. Therefore, you need to ensure that you can prove your entitlement to a deduction for any expenses or any capital allowance claimed in your tax return. Many recent tax appeals decisions have referred to this point. An Appeals Commissioner cannot decide a case in favour of a taxpayer where the taxpayer cannot discharge the burden of proof. Regarding an asset that is a capital asset, it will be necessary to keep documentation for six years after the property is disposed of. If a property was bought in 2000 and sold in 2021, for example, documentation regarding the purchase of that asset must be retained until 2027. Doing so enables you to prove your entitlement to a deduction for the costs of acquisition incurred in 2000 in determining the capital gains tax payable (or indeed the capital loss) on the disposal of the asset. The retention of documentation is also important in the context of VAT and the Capital Goods Scheme. When an asset is disposed of, the vendor is often obliged to complete Pre-Contract VAT Enquiries (PCVE) as part of the sales process. The PCVE contain full details of the purchase/development of the property, how it has been used since it was acquired, and how it is currently being used. To determine the correct VAT treatment of the sale, there can be no gaps in terms of how the property has been used. It is easier to maintain this information on a contemporaneous basis rather than pulling together information on all prior years as you prepare to sell the property. * Review your document retention policy as in some cases, you may need to keep certain records for more than six years. How do I ensure compliance with BIK rules on the provision of company cars? Employers who provide employees with company cars are obliged to keep contemporaneous records of business mileage. BIK operates by applying a percentage rate to the original market value of the car provided to the employee (other than electric cars, where different rules apply). The applicable percentage depends on the annual business mileage driven by the employee and ranges from 30% down to 6%. If any rate other than 30% is used, the employer must be able to prove the business mileage. Where an employee is provided with a car, they must complete a monthly log of the business journeys for their employers. While the tax is payable by the employee, the obligation is on the employer to operate the tax correctly. In addition, if the vehicle provided is a commercial vehicle or a van, the appropriate BIK rate is 5% regardless of the business mileage. * Review how you are calculating PAYE on the BIK on company cars and keep appropriate contemporaneous records of staff business mileage. What information does my tax advisor need to prepare my tax return? Where your accountant prepares your business’s financial statements, they will generally have sufficient information to prepare an accurate tax return. Where the financial statements are prepared by the business and provided to the tax advisor, however, they will generally need answers to the following questions: Are all expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade? For example, consider business entertainment, charitable and political donations, personal expenditure, and expenses paid for by the business that may not relate to that business. Was the employer’s pension contribution paid during the year, or is there an accrual in the profit and loss account? A tax deduction is only available on a paid basis. Can you provide an analysis of professional and legal fees? Fees that relate to capital transactions (e.g. asset purchases/sales) are not deductible in calculating trading profits. Can you provide a schedule of fixed asset additions to include the date of acquisition, the cost of acquisition, and the nature of the asset? Also, can you provide a schedule of fixed asset disposals so that accurate capital allowances claims and balancing charges/allowances can be prepared? Can you provide a reconciliation of any finance lease creditors from the opening position to the closing position? Can you provide a schedule of directors’ remuneration split by director? Can you provide details of any dividends or distributions paid during the year? Can you provide details of any non-trading income? Where medical insurance is paid on behalf of the staff, can you provide details of the tax relief at source (TRS) amount and confirm whether the gross or net amount has been included in the profit and loss account? * Save time and fees by completing the checklist your tax advisor will need to prepare your tax return. These issues occur in a wide range of businesses. You should aim to ensure that your business is compliant with tax legislation on an ongoing basis. Careful consideration should be given to amending any errors you discover – before you get that knock on the door. Jane O’Hanlon is a Director at Purcell McQuillan and a Fellow of Chartered Accountants Ireland.

In an age of information overload, what websites and internet resources can someone who wants to keep up-to-date with the world of finance and financial management rely on? Here’s Cormac Lucey’s selection. For daily business news… The RTÉ website offers us the opportunity to read the daily survey of business and financial news published by the main Dublin stockbrokers. This is not just a useful survey of the previous day’s financial economic news, it also offers readers the opportunity to understand how financially literate readers view that news.   Visit www.rte.ie/news/markets/broker_reports (and check out Goodbody Stockbrokers). For detailed financial data on leading Irish corporates… I opened up an account with Davy Stockbrokers largely to get access to the company’s Weekly Book. That is a compendium of corporate data for quoted companies covering recent financial history, near-term financial forecasts and key valuation metrics. For avid financial number crunchers such as myself, it’s the equivalent of crack cocaine! Visit www.davy.ie  For an up-to-date overview of the Irish economy… The National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) borrows money on behalf of the State. That requires regularly updating international debt investors (who may buy Irish government debt) on economic developments here. Visit www.ntma.ie (and look for ‘Investor Presentation’).  For an overview of the Northern Ireland economy… EY’s Chief Economist, Neil Gibson, provides a regular and authoritative update on what is going on up North.  Visit www.ey.com (and search for ‘EY Economic Eye: Northern Ireland’). For a global economic overview from a monetary perspective… Simon Ward, Janus Henderson’s economic adviser, uses monetary and cycle analysis to assess economic and market prospects. Visit www.moneymovesmarkets.com For general trends in financial management… Two large international consultancies offer regular publications that combine a focus on the practical problems facing financial staff in corporations with intellectual rigour.  Visit www.mckinsey.com (and search for McKinsey on Finance, which offers readers a quarterly selection of useful and stimulating articles). Visit www.bcg.com/capabilities/corporate-finance-strategy/insights, which offers regular corporate finance updates. For current developments in international markets… The Financial Times has an excellent capital markets blog (www.ft.com/alphaville), and there is an offshoot of that (www.ftalphaville.ft.com/longroom/home) on which you can (once registered) access interesting research reports from the world’s top investment banks. Another website where you can access high-level research reports from investment banks is www.savvyinvestor.net (registration required). For the technical situation of main financial markets… Steve Blumenthal, executive chair of Capital Management Group, produces a useful technical survey of the main US markets each week.  Visit www.cmgwealth.com/ri-category/on-my-radar  For financial chatter, conspiracy theories and the occasional blinding insight... It’s all available here: www.zerohedge.com  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

As businesses across the island of Ireland grapple with the post-Brexit trading environment, any and all opportunities for growth should be grasped with both hands, writes Dawn McLaughlin. The new trading arrangements brought about by Brexit and the Northern Ireland Protocol have caused much economic and political upheaval and controversy since the turn of the year. We are all well versed by now in the arguments for and against the Protocol. However, it remains the case that businesses, in the main, are largely supportive of the new arrangements in the absence of any better solutions. While no one would claim that it is a perfect situation, for businesses in Northern Ireland – particularly those in the north-west border region – there are advantages. Being able to trade freely with the rest of the UK and into the EU and the rest of the island of Ireland is a distinct competitive advantage afforded to businesses on one side of the Derry-Donegal border that isn’t available to the other. Another positive consequence has seen north-south trade in Ireland boom since the start of 2021. It has increased by over 60%, according to the Central Statistics Office’s most recent figures. Some local businesses have begun trading with their southern neighbours for the first time, shifting supply chains and finding new markets and customers. However, many of these businesses will not have realised that they are technically exporting their goods or services, often considered to be the preserve of shipping products across the world. The Londonderry Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with our partners at Invest Northern Ireland, Derry City and Strabane District Council, InterTradeIreland, and Enterprise North West, have established Growth North West. This partnership is developing new initiatives to help businesses grow their operations across several business areas, such as exporting and innovation. Focusing on the export journey first, experts will cover different aspects of the exporting process to show attendees how to make the most of the export opportunities available to them. Then, businesses can schedule a one-on-one appointment for a more bespoke review of their exporting needs and challenges. This covers everything from export documentation, logistics and sales prospecting to maximising social media and perfecting your pitch. Growth North West is a one-stop-shop for everything your business needs to begin expanding into new markets and trading with new customers. As well as a series of monthly webinars, a mapping exercise has been carried out detailing all available export support. As a sole practitioner, I know that keeping up-to-date with ever-changing programmes and supports is hugely time-consuming. So, to help Chartered Accountants add value and guide clients on their export journey, Growth North West will hold awareness sessions in the coming months. These sessions will be publicised through the Chamber and are open to all. We look forward to engaging with businesses of all kinds, shapes and sizes as they begin or expand their export operations. There are significant opportunities for our local firms, both beyond these shores and on our shared island. As we all grapple with the post-Brexit trading environment, any and all opportunities for growth should be grasped with both hands. Growth North West aims to deliver stimulation and growth opportunities for our region at a time of economic uncertainty and upheaval. Throughout the pandemic, firms have been innovating their services and pivoting their operations to stay afloat. Looking outwards at new export markets is one way our local businesses can positively react to both the effects of the pandemic and the UK leaving the EU. Dawn McLaughlin is Founder of Dawn McLaughlin & Co. Chartered Accountants and President of Londonderry Chamber of Commerce.

David Swinburne outlines the practical considerations for members as they prepare to deal with the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process. With the much-anticipated legislation for the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (SCARP) ready to be enacted, it will be interesting to see how the process evolves. SCARP aims to rescue struggling businesses that form the backbone of the Irish economy – small and micro companies. These SMEs provide the greatest number of jobs in Ireland. The process, by and large, mirrors the successful examinership process, which has been around for 30 years. However, the costs associated with SCARP are expected to be significantly lower than those associated with examinership. Under SCARP, there is no automatic involvement of the Court. Therefore, the costs associated with legal representation for both the company and the examiner are not applicable. Under SCARP, a company does not have protection from its creditors. However, there is the comfort that the Court is there should it be required. Of course, if recourse to the Court is required, costs will increase. What should a company or its external accountant be doing now? In a typical examinership case, there is invariably some event that occurs at very short notice or an unforeseen shock that pushes the company into insolvency. This, in turn, leads to an urgent application to Court for protection and the appointment of an examiner. Thus, the process for the duration of the examinership becomes a pressure cooker. For SCARP to be successful, planning at a very early stage and engagement with an insolvency practitioner (known as the ‘process advisor’ under SCARP) is vital. The insolvency practitioner will need to quickly assess whether or not the company is a suitable candidate for SCARP. The company can only be a suitable candidate if it has the prospect of survival, which means that it must be viable. Before commencing the SCARP process, the company will therefore need to determine (in as far as it can) that there is a strong likelihood that it will emerge successfully out the other end. For this, it must have a viable core business and source sufficient financial resources to fund the SCARP (if its creditors are to be settled immediately instead of over a period of time). The company’s stakeholders will want certainty on the outcome for them. This will form their decision as to whether or not they will support, and therefore vote in favour of, the SCARP. Fail to plan, plan to fail Early engagement with an insolvency practitioner will also allow them to identify creditors that are likely to be more challenging to deal with in the SCARP due to the complexity of the contractual relationship between such a creditor and the company. Such creditors may include landlords and others to whom the company has more onerous obligations. These creditors can be dealt with under SCARP (subject to their consent). However, if the issues are likely to be difficult to resolve, an application to Court may be required. Identifying such creditors before the process begins will be crucial in setting out the options and, consequently, the further anticipated costs that may arise in dealing with them. Based on recent applications before the High Court, it is evident that the Court will want the company to endeavour to engage with creditors and attempt to resolve difficulties before bringing the matter before the Court. Therefore, the Court should not be the first port of call in resolving issues with any creditor. Excludable debt The possibility for State creditors (with a particular focus on Revenue, which is likely to be a creditor in any SCARP scheme) to opt-out of the process has generated mixed reactions. In my experience, however, Revenue is not a blocker. Instead, it is – and will continue to be – supportive of company restructurings, whether informal or formal (i.e. SCARP or examinership). For Revenue to take such a supportive stance, the company and its directors will need to have a compliant and transparent record in their dealings with Revenue. Therefore, companies must continue to meet their Revenue filing obligations – even in circumstances where the company has warehoused debt and is not in a position to discharge its ongoing taxes as and when they fall due. Directors’ duties Under SCARP, there is a requirement for the process advisor to report any offence to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Office for the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE). It is therefore vital that all directors act honestly and responsibly at all times. When will SCARP cases commence? There is a view that as long as COVID-19 State supports are in place, companies will not succumb to the pressure that they may face after the removal of all State supports. However, not all Irish entities are receiving State support. And those that are not are heavily reliant on their trading partners to discharge their obligations to ensure their own survival and future success. Formal insolvencies are at an all-time low. Given the impact of the last 17 months on the economy, you would expect insolvencies to have increased, not decreased. There is no doubt that the various extensive State supports, coupled with payment breaks and holiday periods from other key creditors and stakeholders, have ensured the continued survival of businesses that would otherwise have run out of cash. As the ‘new normal’ continues to be rolled out and we all adjust and adapt, creditors will be forced to become more active in their efforts to collect cash and recover amounts owing. This is when a company becomes vulnerable in terms of its future survival and direction, as its creditors start to take matters into their own hands. Control in terms of survival will quickly switch from being with a company to its creditor(s). Therefore, as highlighted above, early engagement with an insolvency practitioner and an assessment of SCARP as a credible option is a must. Time-frame The end-to-end time-frame for a SCARP is much shorter than examinership (70 days versus 150 days), which means that much preparatory work will take place before the SCARP is formally kicked off by the directors via a resolution and the appointment of the process advisor. Getting difficult and challenging creditors onside is time-consuming. If certain creditors are unlikely to be supportive before the commencement of the SCARP, it is more likely that they will object to it. This will result in an automatic application to Court to seek approval for the SCARP, which impacts the certainty of the outcome for the company, its employees, and its consenting creditors. What should I do next? If one of your clients is struggling now or is highly likely to struggle in the future, or you own or lead an SME that is eligible for SCARP (see sidebar), you should consult now with an experienced insolvency practitioner. David Swinburne FCA is an insolvency practitioner and Advisory Partner at FitzGerald Legal & Advisory, Cork. SCARP eligibility An SME will be eligible for SCARP if it satisfies two of the following three criteria: Turnover of up to €12 million; A balance sheet of up to €6 million; and/or Up to 50 employees.

Dr Brian Keegan takes the jobs theory of David Graeber to task, arguing that he fundamentally missed the point of the work that he deemed superfluous. As we emerge from pandemic lockdowns, people are realising that at least some of the work totems that we have subscribed to all our working lives were false gods. Many (though by no means all) businesses have recognised that working from home can be a successful and efficient way to carry out white-collar work, if only for some of the time. The tumbling of the ever-present-in-the-office totem may also foster a notion that a four-day working week, for the same pay, might be just as productive as the five-day week grind. The idea is not new. John Maynard Keynes theorised in the 1930s that, with the advent of technology, we could all possibly produce as much with just a two-day working week. At least one Irish trade union is taking up the short week cudgel, but among its most vociferous advocates was David Graeber, a professor at the London School of Economics and author of Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Graeber is possibly best known for the latter, which outlines his theory on pointless jobs that exist, as he put it, just for the sake of keeping us all working. Graeber kept a “little list” of such occupations, though in practice, it was a long list of salaried professionals whose work he thought would not be missed were they to stop doing it. A world without nurses, refuse collectors, mechanics, teachers or dockworkers would soon be in trouble. Graeber wanted to know if the same could be said if we had no lobbyists, actuaries, telemarketers or legal consultants? Or even, perhaps, accountants. Most people, irrespective of what they do, have spent Graeber-esque days wondering if their jobs have any real meaning. Graeber’s theory may not differ from other economic or management theories that encapsulate a solitary insight but get pushed too far. The Peter Principle says that everyone ultimately gets promoted to their level of incompetence, beyond which they will go no further. That doesn’t, however, describe all career trajectories or the management structure of most successful organisations. Similarly, Parkinson’s law, which posits that work expands to fill the time available, also misses a fundamental point. As society progresses and demands higher standards, the same tasks take longer because the demand is there to do them better. Graeber’s theory falls down because it misses the point of the work he deems superfluous. Every society needs its members to share a commonality of goals, aspirations and standards. There are few processes slower and more tedious than the political process, with a small ‘p’ rather than a capital ‘P’. So many of the jobs dismissed by Graeber contribute to the creation of society’s culture, structure and shared understanding. That requires a degree of patience often lacking in an anarchic perspective like his. Many such jobs are also meaningful to those who do them and thus confer dignity to their time and effort. There is a maxim among anthropologists that fish don’t see the water they swim in, so the discipline’s contribution is to point it out. Equally, however, academics and theoreticians don’t always see that they themselves are swimming in an environment supported by the kind of work decried by Graeber. So, perhaps the real contribution of Graeber’s theory is to serve as a hazard warning for the rarefied academic environment from which it emanated. But then again, maybe a four-day week isn’t such a bad idea… Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy & Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland.