Conal Kennedy, Head of Practice Consulting, writes: In Practice Consulting, we often take calls and emails from members about difficulties and challenges that arise in practice. One of the most common queries surrounds the rights and obligations of the various parties when there is a change of professional adviser. When a client decides to move from one accounting firm to another, both parties should cooperate to make the transition as smooth as possible. However, complications and difficulties can arise when one of the parties has a grievance. Sometimes, the relationship between the firm and the client may have lasted many years, and its ending can come as an unpleasant surprise to the existing accountant, the worse so if they have not been fully paid for all work done. On the other hand, the new accountant may be very pleased to gain a new client, and may be surprised in their turn by difficulties posed by the incumbent. In some rare instances, incoming accountants do not do all that is required of them under the Code of Ethics, particularly around professional enquiries. In Practice Consulting, we receive communications from members on both sides of the fence. We provide information and guidance to the member, bearing in mind of course that there are two sides to every issue. Let’s look at a typical scenario and discuss some of the issues and possible misconceptions, with the details anonymised but addressing problems that are common enough. As always, we need to concentrate on the key matters in a generalised way, so if you are faced with this scenario yourself, please go to the Sections 320 of the Code of Ethics for the full requirements and guidance. In our example, a firm has made contact with Practice Consulting, explaining that they have recently taken on a new client. The client is a limited company, who needs a non-audit accounts preparation assignment and tax compliance work carried out. The firm has sent the professional enquiry letter to the previous accountant. However, the outgoing accountant has written back to the firm and the client to say that they have not been paid for a certain piece of work, and are withholding clearance and keeping possession of all records until they have been paid in full. What are the rights and obligations of the parties? In the first instance, there is no such thing as “professional clearance” as such. No accounting firm can prevent another accounting firm from working for a client, and therefore no firm can give or withhold clearance. The incoming accountant is obliged to carry out professional enquiries to determine if there is any professional reason why they should not take up the appointment. This is the purpose of the “any professional reason” letter, to which the outgoing accountant should respond, with the approval of the client. The new agent should make their best efforts to obtain responses to the letter, including re-sending the letter by registered mail, if necessary. However, if they do not receive a response following reasonable efforts, and their other enquiries are sufficient to indicate that there is no valid reason not to take up the assignment, then they may proceed. In this instance, the existing accountant would appear to be attempting to take a lien, meaning a right to retain possession over certain documents that they have in their possession until they have been paid. Whilst this right still exists, it is really only applicable in quite narrow circumstances. Firstly, the outgoing accountant is obliged to co-operate with the successor to ensure that the client’s interests are not prejudiced, including the client’s obligation to comply with its legal obligations if there is no other means to do so. This may in effect mean the that the incumbent accountant is obliged to forward any missing information to ensure that tax compliance and filing obligations are met, or other interests are protected, and therefore the right of lien may be largely irrelevant in respect of the core accounting records of the entity. Secondly, in the case of an incorporated client, insofar as any of the documents held by the outgoing accountant constitute the accounting records of the company, then company law requires that these should be returned to the directors of the company. The fact that the outgoing accountant has not been paid does not affect either of the obligations mentioned above. Insofar as the accountant proposes to take a lien, this only applies to documents that have been worked on and for which the accountant has not been paid. In the case above, it would appear that the outgoing accountant is obliged to hand over the key accounting records that it holds, and to separately seek payment of the outstanding fees. The outgoing accountant should also respond to the professional enquiry letter. When we discuss the above rights and obligations with members who contact us, the members occasionally observe that the advantage appears to be with the incoming accountant. In fact, the Code of Ethics cannot override the obligation of the client to comply with legislation, or give the existing accountant rights that contradict company law. The message that members should draw is that their rights to refuse cooperation in the event of non-payment are quite limited, and they should organise their credit control policies accordingly. Many firms have a policy of limiting their exposure to large outstanding fees through direct debit and staged payment arrangements with clients. In the case of audit clients, the incoming auditor has certain rights to access information held by the outgoing auditor. The circumstances in which these rights apply differ slightly between ROI and UK, but are a legal right of the incoming auditor, and the application of them differs somewhat from the ethical obligations discussed above. If you have questions in connection with this issue or other practice related issues or dilemmas, please contact Practice Consulting and we will endeavour to give you the information and guidance that you need.

Members of Chartered Accountants Ireland are annually required to confirm that they are aware of their “obligations as set out in the Code of Ethics for members”. Accounting firms are required to indicate in their annual return whether they have “taken steps to ensure that all Principals, Employees and Subcontractors fully comply with the Institute’s Code of Ethics for Members”. A glance at the Regulation section of Accountancy Ireland reveals that non-compliance with the Code of Ethics is a frequent finding leading to disciplinary action against an individual member or firm. So how do you ensure you and all in the firm are familiar with the obligations as set out in the Code of Ethics? While reading the Code of Ethics is a good starting point, the current version is a long read at 202 pages, 261 if you include the obligations applying to insolvency practitioners. Recent research and engagement with accounting professionals on ethics has consistently identified training and illustrative case studies as the preferred supports for increasing familiarisation with the Code of Ethics. Professional accountants have expressed a preference for real-life examples and case studies which allow them to consider ethical dilemmas in a practical way, relevant to their own experience. The recent publication of five sets of ethical dilemmas case studies by the Consultative Committee of Accounting Bodies (CCAB), of which Chartered Accountants Ireland is a member, is a welcome response to this need. The case studies, which are applicable in both UK and Ireland, illustrate how the Code of Ethics can be applied by members working in business, not-for-profits, the public sector, public practice, and as non-executive directors. Each set contains several case studies tailored to reflect ethical dilemmas that can arise in the course of their professional work. They are designed to outline key principles and processes that can be considered when attempting to identify, evaluate and address ethical threats in line with the Code of Ethics. While more than one set of case studies may be relevant to an individual member, members in practice will appreciate the case studies exploring a range of ethical dilemmas tailored for professional accountants in public practice. This set explores the following ethical dilemmas: Case Study 1 explores the dilemma faced by a manager in relation to a very competent junior member of staff whose personal circumstances require her to take regular absences from work. This is having a negative impact on her colleagues, who are vocal about being overworked. Like other case studies in the set, it works through the dilemma in a structured manner, consistent with the conceptual framework outlined in the Code of Ethics, to: consider which of the five fundamental principles (integrity, confidentiality, professional behaviour, objectivity, professional competence and due care) are under threat; consider the relevant facts, which also involves seeking out information rather than solely relying on the information presented prima facie; identify affected parties, including considering the culture and reputation of the firm; determine who should be involved in the resolution and whether to consult with a colleague, external expert, or other trusted advisor; determine a possible course of action and implement, with the advice to document the steps taken in resolving the dilemma in case your ethical judgement is challenged in the future. Case Study 2 presents a dilemma faced by a partner in a three-partner firm. He discovers a client is not recording certain cash sales in their accounts. The case study examines the practical considerations including how to communicate the issue with the client and possible actions to take if the client is not receptive to the news. The commentary includes an outline of a thought process that prioritises the reputation of the firm, the five fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics, and relevant laws and regulations, to decide on the best advice for the client. This case also highlights the importance of considering legal reporting obligations, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering legislation and fraud. Case Study 3 tackles an ethical dilemma facing a sole practitioner who loses a local small business client (Company A) and is subsequently approached to help a local competitor of Company A (Company B) make an offer to buy their former client. This dilemma is compounded by the fact that Company A is struggling financially but this is not common knowledge. Also, the sole practitioner is acting as an alternate/continuity provider for another local sole practitioner, who is convalescing after a medical treatment. Company B is a client of the other practitioner. This case is a good example of how there can be several dimensions to an ethical dilemma, and the benefits of having a structured process in addressing such dilemmas. In Case Study 4, an accountant is advising a medium-sized group on a range of improvements to its operations and systems. After identifying a range of issues and preparing a report estimating the costs, the accountant becomes aware that the director with whom they are liaising has significantly understated these in a separate report to the board. The director does not share the accountant’s report with the board. This case requires consideration of to whom the accountant owes their fiduciary duty, and how they might discharge their duties and effectively manage their professional relationship with the client. Case Study 5 outlines a scenario in which a trainee accountant in a firm has been tasked with completing some complicated work within a very tight deadline in the lead-up to them taking study leave. While there are lessons to be learned for both parties, the case highlights that certain behaviour, which itself may be unethical, may give rise to further unethical behaviour directly impacting the quality of work for clients. In Case Study 6, a three-partner firm has a large audit client to whom it also provides non-audit services. There are substantial fees outstanding from the client and significant going-concern issues arise. Several issues are explored in this case, including that the audit planning section was not appropriately reviewed, that key information was missed, and that there is pressure to provide the bank with a clean audit opinion so it can extend the company’s overdraft facility. This is a situation in which more than one set of ethical obligations require consideration, in this case the Code of Ethics and the Ethical Standards for Auditors. Case Study 7 addresses suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations (NOCLAR), including bribery and cover-up of breaches of environmental laws and regulations, and considers any legal reporting obligations for the firm. The case highlights real issues that can arise, including dealing with pressure from clients to disregard any suspicions of noncompliance, desire to disassociate from illegal or unethical activity, deciding whether to override client confidentiality and report suspicions to the appropriate authorities, and balancing duties to the client with the public interest with safeguarding the reputation of the firm. CCAB’s Ethical Dilemma Case Studies provide an interesting and illuminating way to engage with the Code of Ethics while also increasing awareness of some threats to ethical conduct that can arise in an accountancy firm. Members are encouraged to use, read and apply them, and they can also be used by firms and/or training providers provided they are appropriately referenced. The case studies and other resources that can assist members in considering ethical dilemmas can be found on the Chartered Accountants Ireland Ethics Resource Centre. Níall Fitzgerald FCA Head of Ethics & Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance, writes:  Over 59% of member firms with audit registration on the island of Ireland carry out audits of non-profit organisations, including charities. It is reasonable to expect that an even greater number provide non-audit services to this sector. Many members in practice, and their staff, are also involved in the sector as trustees, volunteers, or donors.  This level of involvement is not surprising given the size of the sector.   According to the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), as of February 2020 there were approximately 6,122 non-profits with total income of £792m in Northern Ireland. In the Republic of Ireland, according to data available at the end of 2019 collated by Benefacts, there were approximately 32,841 non-profits. The total income determinable for 32% of these was €14.2bn (the remaining 68% being mostly smaller local non-profits for which relevant information was not publicly available). Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on the sector The financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on non-profits is not yet clear. Many non-profits entered 2020 with low reserves and some have been forced by the pandemic to pause operations, while others have experienced a surge in demand for their services. Accountants are playing an important role in supporting the recovery of this sector, such as assisting with obtaining grants and government supports. In a report published by Benefacts in May 2021, ‘Charities in Ireland 2021’, an uplift of over 10% in government funding was provided to charities in the Republic of Ireland. Some charities also benefited from increases in philanthropic donations. Five key considerations for accountants providing services to the non-profit sector Given the level of commitment of members in practice to the non-profit sector, the following considerations are a useful aide memoir for some of the common matters that can arise: 1. Determine if client is a charity or other non-profit All charities are non-profits but not all non-profits are charities. For example: an owners’ (or residents’) management company may establish as trading for the mutual benefit of its members, but it is not a charity, nor is it a non-profit established for a public benefit; and while a sporting organisation may be established as a non-profit, it may also be registered as a charity. If in doubt, confirm by reference to the registers of charities maintained by the Charities Regulator in the Republic of Ireland or the Charity Commission of Northern Ireland if the non-profit is a registered charity. When accepting a non-profit client, it is important to understand these nuances to determine the type of services you may be requested to undertake and also to understand its various governance structures that may impact on anti-money laundering vetting and other client acceptance procedures. 2. Avoid a principal-agent dilemma Many non-profit organisations are juggling various governance, secretarial, accounting, audit, and finance requirements, in the midst of delivering services. While some of the larger non-profits will have full time staff to manage these requirements, smaller organisations will have fewer resources (sometimes consisting of part time or volunteer staff). The board of trustees/directors bears the ultimate responsibility for the management and control of the organisation, but there is a level of reliance placed on the services of the accountant to fill any gaps in expertise. A principal-agent dilemma can arise in instances where the principal (the non-profit) can have different expectations to those understood by the agent (the accounting firm). This dilemma is more common in casual and informal business relationships, potentially exposing the fiduciary (the accountant) to greater risk. Where the accountant accepts appointment as auditor, they are a principal in their own right. Auditors need in the first instance to maintain their independence, and all additional services should be viewed in this context. Part of the solution is to ensure that a tailored engagement letter is put in place at the start of each business relationship, clearly stating services to be provided and each party’s responsibilities. The letter should be reviewed annually and updated when required. 3. Advising on governance requirements for charities Charities in the Republic of Ireland are required to apply the Charities Governance Code (the ‘Code’). In 2021, charities are required to report for the first time on compliance with the Code. The following key points address some common queries from charities: Charities are required to note in their annual return to the Charities Regulator whether they are compliant with the Code. If compliant with the Code, the charity should disclose this fact in its annual report, for example in the Trustees Report. The Code applies on a ‘comply or explain’ basis: if a Charity has not complied with any part of the Code, it is required to provide an explanation. Charities must annually complete a Charities Governance Code Compliance Record Form, available from the Charities Regulator website. The form is not required to be submitted to the Charities Regulator unless specifically requested as part of a monitoring exercise. The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland has produced guidance, factsheets, and other resources to support charities in maintaining good governance and meeting their statutory responsibilities. The Code of Good Governance, produced by the Developing Governance Group, while not a statutory code, has been widely endorsed as a practical resource for supporting charities in complying with governance best practice and their statutory obligations. Further information on governance requirements is available from the Charities Regulator (Republic of Ireland) and The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. 4. Managing conflicts of interest If an accountant is asked to intervene in a dispute arising amongst trustees, staff, or volunteers of a non-profit, or between the non-profit and a third party (other than the accountant), it is important to determine whether there are any conflicts of interest to be managed. Given the often local nature of non-profits, and the level of community commitment and passionate support they receive, accountants should be particularly aware of disputes involving: other clients of the practice; any other partner or staff member in the practice; a close family member or friend of any of the above. In some cases, an accountant may be providing services to a non-profit that they support for personal reasons, e.g. a family member benefits from the service of the non-profit. In such cases, the accountant is encouraged to consider whether they can provide objective advice to resolve the dispute, or whether any preconception or bias may affect professional judgment to the extent they can no longer be objective. Section 310 of the Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics identifies certain measures that can be taken to safeguard threats caused by a conflict of interest. Some examples of measures include disclosing the conflict, obtaining consent, or resigning from the provision of services. Additionally, auditors have specific responsibilities under Ethical Standards applying to auditors. 5. Promoting transparency and filing full sets of financial statements Many non-profits rely on public funding and/or private donations. Many also rely on broad support networks, including volunteers and other voluntary services. In an era where scepticism is plenty and trust is guarded, accessibility of information and transparency can make a big difference in efforts to attract significant funds and other forms of support. To address this, non-profits who are incorporated should consider publishing and filing full statutory financial statements (e.g. FRS 102 or FRS 102 Charities SORP). Indeed, they may be obliged to do so. Unincorporated non-profits should consider a similar level of transparency regarding their annual accounts. The preparation of financial statements is ultimately the responsibility of the trustees/directors of the non-profit. They have statutory and fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the organisation and to have regard to its stakeholders. However, they may seek the advice of the accountant who, as a fiduciary advisor, has a responsibility to advise and act in the client’s best interests. Current corporate governance codes and best practice reinforce the importance of accountability and transparency in the non-profit sector and encourage standards that are higher than minimum compliance with the law. It is important to ensure that these requirements are considered in making decisions or providing advice affecting the preparation of financial statements. The Chartered Accountants Ireland Governance Resource Centre contains useful resources for trustees or directors of non-profits, such as the ‘Concise Guide of Ethics and Governance for the Charity and Not-for-profit Sector’ and the recently published ‘Owners’ Management Companies – A Concise Guide for Directors’.  

Kieran Moynihan explains how boards, and non-executive directors, in particular, can optimise decision-making during times of crisis.A veteran non-executive board director (NED) recently shared valuable insights into the workings of an experienced board dealing with the severe impacts of COVID-19 on the organisation. While this is quite an experienced board with battle-hardened veterans in both the executive and non-executive ranks, he indicated that they collectively struggled with the enormity of the challenge facing the organisation.While the board was quite mature in terms of risk management and business continuity planning, several significant decisions were required in a very short time frame. He was extremely complimentary of the efforts, understanding and commitment of the employees to the organisation as well as the outstanding leadership shown by the CEO and executive team. He also highlighted how much the NEDs “rolled up their sleeves” and provided great support in reviewing, challenging, and providing valuable input to the crisis management plan. He highlighted that the CEO witnessed a “new side” to the board whereby it demonstrated a huge commitment not only to the organisation, but in supporting the CEO and executive team as they implemented an elaborate crisis management plan under severe pressure.Unfortunately, some boards have not performed as well during the crisis. The core problem, I believe, is often the calibre of board members. Some are not strong enough to cope well in an emergency to add any strategic value to the executive team. This scenario continues to play out in boards across the world where, in some cases, board and executive teams have faced existential challenges in terms of their organisation’s survival. Amid the devastating impact on employees, an organisation’s financial health, and its shareholders and stakeholders, boards must stand up and be counted like never before.The following definition of crisis management from Deloitte caught my eye recently: “Crisis management is a special, strategic discipline that enables an organisation to leave ‘business as usual’ behind, and to enter a different mode of governance and operations, designed to get decisions made, implemented and communicated quickly, with clear – but different – designated authorities.” While a board has many broad types of responsibilities, the fundamental duty of a board is to make significant decisions. At a time of extreme crisis management, this acute responsibility comes to the fore. It represents a real test of a board of directors in terms of its calibre, decisiveness, effectiveness, judgement, and performance. The following factors can help a board optimise decision-making in the eye of a storm.Quality informationThe brutal reality of the COVID-19 crisis is that major decisions must be made in compressed time frames of days or, in extreme cases, hours. Many of these decisions have serious consequences for the organisation and its employees, customers, shareholders, and stakeholders. Board chairs have a critical role in enabling the board to overcome these compressed review/decision cycles and drive coherent and decisive decision-making.In normal times, quality information is the lifeblood of a board in terms of significant decision-making. In times of crisis, however, it is challenging for the CEO and executive team to create comprehensive board packs when you may have just 24 hours before the next virtual board meeting. In this context, quality is more important than quantity in terms of helping the board understand the logic behind significant proposals from the CEO and executive team.While not ideal, firefighting CEOs and executive teams rely heavily on gut instinct to choose from what appear to be radically different options. It is essential to provide the NEDs with your gut instincts and blunt assessment of the pros and cons of each option.Challenge, debate, and oversightWhen the stakes are high for significant board decisions, the board must maintain the highest standards of challenge, debate, and oversight. A CEO and executive team under severe pressure could undoubtedly get a big call wrong or struggle to create a coherent proposal for consideration by the board. Despite the challenging time frames for decision-making, NEDs must prepare for board meetings, ask hard questions, and add genuine value (in some cases, by identifying additional options or variations/combinations of options that will help the executive team see the wood from the trees).The board chair has a vital role in balancing the level of challenge, debate, and oversight with supporting the CEO and executive team. Genuine board diversity has been a very positive strength for boards as the broader range of thinking styles has enabled greater left-field thinking and more creative problem-solving, while significantly reducing the potential for group-think. At such a crucial time, shareholders, employees and stakeholders rely heavily on NEDs to provide such critical challenge, debate, and oversight to reach the best decisions.The trust equationThe COVID-19 crisis is testing the bonds in many board teams. In such fraught times, tensions can morph into damaging conflict, which boards can do without. While some high-performing board teams have managed this challenge in their stride, this crisis has also galvanised many board teams around a common purpose.A crisis of this magnitude shines a bright light on the ‘trust equation’ of a board. It can be challenging in such a volatile landscape, with so much uncertainty in each sector, to make concrete decisions. Decisiveness, however, is nevertheless a vital trait for a board in crisis management situations, and it is much more effective when the trust quotient is high. In order to strengthen trust, boards can extend a greater degree of latitude than normal to the CEO and executive team, enabling them to provide timely, insightful updates back to the board on the progress of major decision implementation.Changing courseOne of the most challenging aspects of the crisis for many company boards has been facing up to the requirement in specific sectors to make significant changes to the company’s business model and strategy. For companies that had a dominant market position for many years, it can be challenging to face up to the reality that the market has changed, customer requirements have changed, and in some cases, barriers to entry have been lowered with disruptive new technologies.'Independence of mind' is a critical quality in a NED whereby the board director who is not involved day-to-day is able to step back, take a cold, objective view on the organisation’s position, assess the options and implications of a major proposal being put forward by the CEO and provide a sound independent judgement. In this scenario, where an organisation is facing severe challenges to its existing strategy and business model, independence of mind in the NEDs plays a critical role as it can help the board and executive team face up to and address severe challenges to the existing strategy. Some boards might hope that everything will go back to normal but, for most sectors, things will never be the same. As a result, the organisations that adapt will stand a much higher chance of thriving in the years ahead. Throughout the crisis, I have seen several progressive NEDs utilise this time as an opportunity to evolve the overall mindset and level of ambition in the organisation. NEDs are ideally placed to catalyse this evolving growth mindset as in the majority of cases, the CEO and executive team are in firefighting mode and struggle to have the bandwidth to think strategically and grasp the growth opportunities that the organisation could be presented with.External expertiseWe are in uncharted waters in terms of crisis management. As a board gears up to make big decisions, it is vital that, where appropriate, key shareholders and stakeholders are consulted. They will be forced to live with the consequences of the board’s decisions for years to come.Besides the fact that this is the right thing to do, engagement builds support and is formally required in some instances. It will also provide valuable feedback that, in specific scenarios, may be incorporated into the board’s thought processes.It is also vital that, where needed, external expertise is sought to assist with significant decisions. This might be an existing advisory partner who understands the organisation and sector, or an independent sector expert who could provide an objective assessment of the options.Avoid ‘all-in’ decisionsI play chess at a competitive level, and one of the things you learn as you get more experienced is to avoid, wherever possible, making very committal decisions. This is particularly important when the chessboard is ‘on fire’ with severe complications, and it is simply not possible to calculate the variations. Instead, you seek to stay in the game and get through the next few moves. As the board position becomes clearer, you then make a more committal decision as you execute your plan.The COVID-19 crisis is changing by the hour. As governments struggle to balance the resumption of normal life with the associated public health risks, it is tough for the majority of boards to accurately predict how their sector will look in three months, not to mention one year from now. In some cases, companies are being forced to consider severe changes to their business model. Boards should avoid making premature decisions based on assumptions about how the COVID-19 crisis will influence customer behaviours, business models, and the overall business landscape. Like a game of chess, boards would be wise to develop a range of scenarios linked to the public health and associated economic impacts with appropriate trigger points.Understand the broader impactsAt the start of the year, many boards had made significant progress in increasing their focus on environment, social and governance (ESG) goals, employee engagement, and ‘doing the right thing’ in terms of focusing on the long-term, sustainable wellbeing of the organisation. This has since been severely tested in how boards signed-off on significant decisions impacting their employees, customers, and stakeholders.In some cases, the COVID-19 crisis is undermining much of the significant progress made with decisions favouring short-term shareholder interests at the expense of employees, other stakeholders, and the long-term sustainability of the organisation. Throughout the world, employees have demonstrated incredibly strong commitment and understanding to their organisations and customers. How boards respond to this commitment says a lot about the character, culture, integrity, and values of an organisation. It is encouraging to see a significant number of institutional investors highlight the importance of this for their portfolio of listed companies. In many respects, we saw ESG at its very best in the first few months of the crisis with so many employees and organisations stepping up to help society in its time of need.I strongly believe that the organisations that commit long-term to the core ESG principles of sustainability, partnering with their employees, going the extra mile for their customers and “doing the right thing to ensure the longer-term interests of the organisation” will be the organisations that flourish and thrive going into this uncertain future. The board has a critical leadership role in this. We are moving into an era where progressive boards are evolving into a far more thoughtful balancing of the interests of shareholders, employees and stakeholders. The COVID-19 crisis has crystallised the importance of this multi-stakeholder engagement model and is now firmly in the mindset of customers, prospective employees, partners and investors when they consider engaging with organisations.ConclusionSeven months on, boards continue to grapple with COVID-19 and struggle to make some of the most significant decisions ever made in the history of their organisation. Even the strongest, most high-performing boards struggle to get this right, so for any board members struggling right now, you are not alone.This is a time for board teams to pull together and work closely with the CEO and executive team. Through challenge and debate, you will collectively make the best decisions possible and help your employees, shareholders, and stakeholders envision a path to better days ahead.Key takeaways for boards and non-executive directorsAt a time of such crisis and volatility, it is vital for the board to regularly discuss what is happening with your customers, how the crisis is impacting them, how their requirements are changing both short-,  medium-and longer-term and how the organisation needs to adapt to support your customers.It has never been more vital for the executive reporting to the board to be high-quality, succinct and utilising executive summaries to enable the board members to prepare effectively for the board meeting and assist in the creation of a meeting that can focus on strategic and “move-the-needle” type discussions.Balance cost-cutting, productivity and risk mitigation with supporting innovation-led growth and strategy and business model shifts where needed.Be aware that boards are moving to agile approaches to strategy and budgeting using scenario planning and triggers that work better in situations of high uncertainty such as the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.Organisations, as they facing their greatest crisis, have never had such a strong requirement for board members to demonstrate a great work ethic and commitment to the board and organisation.Kieran Moynihan is Managing Partner at Board Excellence, which supports boards in Ireland, the UK and mainland Europe.

 Originally posted on Business Post, 2 August 2020.Increases in VAT usually pass the acid test of tax policy – the extraction of the most amount of money with the least amount of complaint.  Compared to an income tax increase, the general population rarely gripes about increases in VAT rates.  Hiking the standard rate of VAT of 21% to 23% in 2012 generated hardly any noise compared to the introduction of USC and the reduction of allowances and credits the previous year.  So will people really notice the VAT decrease of 23% to 21% in the July Jobs Stimulus? VAT is a truly European tax in that the rules are devised in Brussels and then implemented in EU member countries.  It is Brussels that decides that the maximum rate of VAT cannot exceed 25%. .  European rules tell us that a box of teabags is charged 0% VAT, but a cup of tea in a café is charged 13.5% VAT while a tin of iced tea in the supermarket is charged 23% VAT.  There’s little enough any Irish government can do to tinker with the VAT system, except make marginal rate adjustments. VAT is a major contributor to the Irish Exchequer.  In 2019, over €15 billion was collected in net VAT receipts which is more than one quarter of the total tax receipts for that year, yet it is a notoriously blunt instrument of public policy.  No VAT is charged on the clothes of the children whose parents are on social welfare, but no VAT is charged either on the clothes of the children of high earners.  Maybe that’s why governments avoid using it for public policy purposes unless you include the now defunct 9% rate of VAT for the hospitality sector.    So it was all the more surprising that the July stimulus knocked two percentage points off the main VAT rate.  The cost of this measure is €440 million, which is a little less than 10% of the total value of the package.  This estimate for the cost of this six month VAT reduction period is in line with Revenue estimates for good years.  In a moribund economy the Department of Finance seems to expect a spending spree.  Remember too that the 23% rate only applies to about half of the items or services we buy.  The rest are charged at lower rates or are exempt. Outside of the retail sphere, the education sector and the banking sector pay sizeable amounts because their activities are largely VAT exempt.  These sectors cannot recover the VAT they pay on purchases because they don’t charge VAT on their sales.  In the main VAT is therefore a consumption tax ultimately falling on the consumer.  So will the VAT reduction boost sales of clothing, alcohol, electrical and other household goods and luxury foodstuffs which fall into the 23% VAT category?  It might not, even if businesses pass on the VAT rate reduction to their customers.  Despite suggestions otherwise from some political quarters, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe was quite clear that the 2% reduction should be passed on to consumers.  That's not going to make a huge difference for many items because the value of a 2% VAT reduction approximates to about €1.60 for every €100 spent.  It only becomes a different story if you go out to buy a big-ticket item like a car, where the VAT saving could perhaps insure it for a year. There is no law obliging traders to reduce their prices because there has been a reduction in the VAT rate.  As long as they charge the correct amount of VAT at the correct time, they can take whatever margin they wish.  Past history however suggests that small VAT reductions like the current 2% reduction tend not to get passed on to consumers.  Part of the rationale when the 9% rate of VAT on hospitality was introduced was that a full 4.5% reduction to the normal 13.5% rate would be visible and palpable and therefore consumers would expect to see the difference.So even if it is passed on, a 2% VAT reduction may be inadequate to drive additional volumes of consumer spending.  In terms of business benefit it might have been better to apply the projected €440 million cost towards reducing the vast amounts of VAT debt currently being warehoused against the day when businesses can finally pay their tax liabilities.  Given that the EU state aid restraints are temporarily lifted, that €440 million could have been targeted, for example, specifically to forgive some of the historical VAT due from the SME sector.  The July Jobs stimulus was good.  Ministers and their officials alike did well to deliver what in effect is a full scale national budget in the space of few weeks.  The purpose and rationale of many of the measures like the extension of the wage subsidy, the extension of the pandemic unemployment payments, and the extinguishing of commercial rates is readily apparent.  The object of this VAT reduction is not as clear. I've never seen a tax reduction I didn't like.  However, many consumers may not notice this tax reduction and many businesses could benefit more from this element of the jobs stimulus if the cost of the VAT reduction was diverted to reducing their current and not their future tax debts.  Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Originally published on Business Post, 24 May 2020 The late US President, Ronald Reagan, had a simple maxim about government's view of the economy.  If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  If it stops moving, subsidise it.  Coronavirus has thrown this maxim into action.   Everything has stopped moving in the economy and must now be subsidised. No less a body than the European Commission formally recommended this week that Ireland “take all necessary measures to effectively address the pandemic, sustain the economy and support the ensuing recovery”.    Borrowing is of course one way of funding these subsidies.  In its capacity as the watchdog of fiscal rectitude among EU countries, the Commission has invoked its General Escape Clause.  That means that there won't be any sanctions for countries borrowing what they have to borrow, and doing what they have to do, to secure their nations’ health and livelihoods.  The European institutions have even made long-term finance available at virtually invisible lending rates for these very purposes.   While all this is helpful, it doesn't take away from the need to ensure sustainable tax revenues to deal with increased bills for our healthcare system, social welfare and other essential services which are likely now to extend well beyond 2020.  These bills cannot be met indefinitely by borrowing.  Gloomy unemployment forecasts of up to 22% in the second quarter of this year, as suggested by the Department of Finance this week, don’t augur well for sustainable tax revenues.   We find ourselves in something of a phoney war, a period of stabilized abnormality.  Everyone is looking forward to the resumption of something approaching normality as the country embarks on its phased reopening of businesses and amenities.  The real measure of the Covid-19 pandemic will be not so much on what does reopen, but what does not.  While it is the high-profile household names – Debenhams, FlyBE - which receive all the attention when they hit the wall, most industry will find it just as difficult to return to pre-covid trading levels.  Smaller service industries in particular are now finding that once they have worked through any business that was on hand, there is nothing new in the pipeline.   To compound matters, the British government's proposals on implementing the Northern Ireland Brexit protocol published this week, while receiving cautious welcome as being something rather than nothing, will not be workable.  The proposals emphasise not imposing additional customs declarations on GB and NI business as trade in goods flows between Britain and Northern Ireland.  This is politically understandable, but customs is a tax.  Taxes are very hard to enforce without declarations.  Further, the proposals are silent on how to manage the exports from Northern Ireland to Britain which are channelled for instance through Dublin Port.   We have a battered economy that is dealing with massive unemployment, compromised business models and the challenges of Brexit rearing up again.  Irish industry is not even paying the taxes which are currently due let alone being able to deliver additional ones.    Downturns tend to promote clamour for tax reform because the fairest tax is always the one which you don't pay yourself.  Tax reforms like changing the corporate tax regime or introducing a wealth tax seem all the more attractive when cash is tight.  The current signals are that tax-raising measures are not high on anyone's priority list, but that will change.  Given the high number of business closures and job layoffs, there will be fewer income earners and hence fewer taxpayers for the next several years.   For years Ireland has used tax as a primary lever of economic policy.  Long before we surrendered our interest rate and exchange rate mechanisms when we joined the euro group of countries, tax was used to drive investment and the employment which follows it.  Our system is characterised by a high rate income tax regime, a high rate VAT regime, a moderate rate capital tax regime, and a low rate corporate tax regime.  We aspire to social equity by having income tax rate thresholds and allowances skewed towards lower earners, generous tax relief for pension provision and a wide range of essential goods and services charged with VAT at lower rates.    It is impossible with any certainty to determine what tax changes might be sustainable when we really don't know what our economy is going to look like in three months’ time, let alone three years.  Overall though, when compared with most other developed economies the Irish tax burden is not particularly high.  We can rely on debt to meet the upfront emergency costs in 2020 and hope that these do not recur, but we cannot rely on it indefinitely while waiting for the numbers of successful businesses recover, and unemployment to fall.   Changes will have to be made, but now is not the time to make them.  It is still the time for subsidies, not for taxes, just as Reagan’s maxim demands.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland