Cormac Lucey explores the misunderstood roots of Ireland’s FDI success and questionable management of surging tax revenues against the backdrop of rising state spending Two important aspects of Ireland’s multinational success story are generally misunderstood.  The first concerns the low-tax strategy that has been the key reason many multinationals have located in Ireland.  As Professor Frank Barry of Trinity College Dublin revealed in his essay “Foreign Investment and the Politics of Export Profits Tax Relief 1956”, this low-tax strategy resulted from then Taoiseach John A. Costello overruling the Department of Finance and forcing an idea promoted by the Department of Industry and Commerce into the Budget.  Underlining the precariousness and capriciousness of life, this strategy didn’t begin to really function until the 1990s.  The second aspect of our multinational story, not generally understood, is how utterly dependent our economy is on American business.  While it is widely known that more than 85 percent of the state’s corporation tax revenues come from multinationals, their contribution to other tax headings is not so well-known.  When you consider multinationals’ 55 percent share of Ireland’s income taxes and 54 percent share of VAT – and apply this lower 54 percent rate to other tax headings – you will see that the multinational sector contributes over 60 percent of the State’s total tax revenues.  How well is the state managing the resulting surge in tax revenues? Well, it’s all being spent, and then some.  According to the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council’s Fiscal Assessment Report published in June 2024, “Excluding excess corporation tax receipts, a deficit of €2.7 billion (0.9% GNI) is forecast for this year. This comes despite a strong economy, with record high employment and historically low unemployment. The question arises: if underlying surpluses are not being run now that the economy is strong, when would they be run?” The quality of much of this spending is highly questionable. The epicentre of rampant State spending growth is occurring in healthcare. A recent Department of Health report analysed hospital activity and expenditure between 2016 and 2022.  It reported a 3.8 percent increase in overall activity, compared with an inflation-adjusted rise in expenditure of 45 percent (nominal rise of 68 percent) and a 29 percent increase in staffing numbers. The Department of Health badly needs budgetary incontinence pads. Or maybe members of the Irish public service simply need to learn how to manage.  Consequence-free management is the key obstacle to effective budgetary control. When staff are treated the same regardless of whether they perform extraordinarily well or extraordinarily badly, should we be surprised when mediocrity results?  The Republic’s governing political class is happy to bask in the reflected glory of multinational-induced prosperity. However, according to the 2023 annual report from the IDA, Ireland’s inward investment agency, the global foreign direct investment landscape is becoming “increasingly challenging and complex.”  And, if he becomes the next US President, Donald Trump plans to significantly undermine Ireland’s attractiveness to US multinationals by putting a 10 percent tariff on US imports. Even though it accounts for 69 percent of employment, Ireland’s domestic sector of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is the orphan of this story. SMEs need targeted tax incentives along the lines of those outlined by Deloitte’s Kim Doyle in the Accountancy Ireland newsletter Briefly. The SME sector also needs a systematic programme to reduce the regulatory burden imposed upon it. Under the guidance of Michael Diviney, Chartered Accountants Ireland recently published Reducing Red Tape, a detailed position paper showing just how that could be done.  The instinctive mindset of government – that ministers are in charge of a great national trainset they can play with at will – flies in the face of the reality that policy decisions involve tricky trade-offs not amenable to facile headlines.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the August/September 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.  

Ireland’s medium-sized businesses are more optimistic than their global peers but a more ambitious approach is needed to deliver their expectations, writes Patrick Dillon Ireland’s medium-sized businesses are uniquely optimistic in their outlook ahead of the upcoming US presidential elections and in the wake of the recent elections in France and the UK.  Just 17 percent see geopolitical disruptions as a barrier to growth, compared to 42 percent in the Eurozone and 49 percent globally. This confidence follows through in the main findings among the Irish respondents to our latest Grant Thornton International Business Report (IBR), which captures insights into the outlook of 10,000 mid-market firms across the globe.  Our Irish IBR respondents are optimistic about the outlook for the Irish economy in the 12 months ahead. Close to three-quarters (73%) of the Irish medium-sized companies we surveyed predict a positive future. The findings are reflective of the resilience of Irish companies that have had to navigate a polycrisis in a short period of time, trading through the pandemic, cost-of-living challenges and disruption to global supply chains. This is not just a case of looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses, however. Irish medium-sized companies are anticipating a healthy bottom line over the next year.  Close to three-fifths of the Irish companies we surveyed predict a rise in revenues (57%), profits (59%), and headcount (52%) in the 12 months ahead. While it is fantastic to see such a strong sense of confidence among this cornerstone of the Irish economy, if the last few years have taught us anything, it is that none of us knows what’s around the corner.  To this end, the companies that will continue to succeed in the future will be those that remain hyper-focused on staying one step ahead of the competition – and this is where our International Business Report makes for slightly more concerning reading.  There is a significant difference in attitudes to innovation among Irish firms compared to their international peers. Just under a quarter (24%) of Irish businesses are preparing to increase investment in research and development over the next twelve months compared to three-fifths (60%) of their global peers.  We found a similar gap in levels of planned technology investment, with just under half (48%) of Ireland’s medium-sized firms budgeting for an increase, compared to 67 percent globally. Ireland is a small pool compared to the ocean that is the global marketplace. If Irish firms are to realise their ambition and potential, then they need to look to new markets.  Investing in innovation is key to unlocking these opportunities, whether it is leveraging digital channels to reach customers in every corner of the world or developing tailored products or services for a specific customer segment internationally.  A confident economic outlook is great, but it doesn’t put money in your pocket. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, an investment in innovation pays the best interest.   Patrick Dillon is Head of Deal Advisory with Grant Thornton Ireland *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the August/September 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.

Revisions to International Standard on Auditing (Ireland) 600 will result in higher-quality group audits, but more work will be required to deliver this benefit, writes Noreen O’Halloran The International Standard on Auditing (ISA) (Ireland) 600 has been revised. Issued by the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA), the revised standard applies to the audit of group financial statements.  Effective for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2023, these revisions aim to enhance audit quality and address inconsistencies in practice. They bring some challenges, however.  The purpose of ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised (the revised standard) is to enhance the quality of the audit delivered, by ensuing better co-ordination and understanding  between the group auditor and the auditor of a group component.  Audit committees, along with group and component management teams, will also experience changes in how the group auditor conducts the group audit.  Roles and responsibilities Various definitions are amended within the revised standard. These include the definition of a component, which now includes entities, business units, functions or business activities, or some combination thereof, determined by the group auditor for the purposes of planning and performing audit procedures in a group audit.  This concept of the auditor’s view of a component marks a departure from the previous standard. Under the previous standard, a component was identified by the group auditor based on the level at which the group or component management prepared the financial information.  As a result, audit committees can expect to see some changes in the identification of the components for the purpose of the group audit. The group engagement partner is responsible for the work performed by the engagement team. The definition of “engagement team” within ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised includes component auditors.  Therefore, it must be clarified that the group engagement partner along with members of the engagement team – other than component auditors (i.e. the group auditor) – will take responsibility for the nature, timing and extent of the direction and supervision of the component auditor’s work and the review of such work.  To fulfil this obligation, in addition to engaging with group management, the group engagement partner will need to be more involved with component auditors and, potentially, component management.  The definition of “significant components” has been removed. This means that there is no longer a set quantitative threshold above which a significant component’s financial information must be audited.  Rather, a more risk-based approach is required. Emphasis has been given to the consideration of the risk of material misstatement at the assertion level of the group financial statements associated with components.  This will mean that more decisions are made by the group auditor in terms of the level of work that is to be performed by each component and by whom this work will be performed. Component auditors may, therefore, expect changes to the scope of their work compared to previous years. The definition of group financial statements has been clarified. The standard focuses on the concept of a consolidation process. This includes the aggregation of the financial information of business units and is wider than the definition of the consolidated financial statement in financial reporting. As a result, audit committees may see a change in the approach to auditing an entity with multiple branches or divisions, as this is now considered to be a group audit.  The standard emphasises the need for a comprehensive approach to auditing all components contributing to group financial statements, ensuring that the audit covers all relevant aspects of the group’s financial reporting. The clarity regarding the definition of a component (including the removal of the significant component), the involvement of the engagement team and the responsibility of the group auditor, may enhance the quality of the audit delivered.  However, additional time will be incurred by the group auditor as a result, who must now ensure that all component auditors are adequately supervised.  The changes to the definition of a component will provide greater flexibility for the group auditor when identifying components. However, this may result in the entity’s management receiving requests for information regarding components that were not previously in scope. Risk-based approach One of the most significant changes in ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised is the alignment of the standard with the principles in ISA (Ireland) 315 Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement.  This requires the group auditor to focus more on identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement at the group level when planning and performing the group audit, rather than simply defaulting to a full scope audit at the component level.  The alignment to ISA (Ireland) 315, and the requirement for the group auditor to take a more active role in identifying and assessing the risks of the material misstatement of group financial statements, will assist in improving audit quality.  It will also require more time, resources and effort on the part of the engagement team, however, and particularly the group engagement partner.  The group auditor will be heavily involved in identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement at the group level and planning the approach to the entire audit, rather than delegating this to the component auditor.  The additional time and effort required will be most evident in large groups with components in multiple locations. The entity’s management may also receive additional, or more granular, requests for information from either the group or component auditor to support the group auditor’s risk assessment procedures.  Communication and documentation ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised reinforces the need for two-way communication between the group auditor and component auditor to ensure that both parties are in sync.  The group and component auditor together comprise one engagement team, so a collaborative environment is essential. The revised standard also emphasises that all ISAs, including ISA (Ireland) 230 Audit Documentation, must be applied in a group audit.  In applying ISA (Ireland) 230, the group auditor must demonstrate in their documentation how they are directing, supervising and reviewing the component auditor’s work.  The group auditor must consider the scenarios where access to either individuals or information at the component auditor level is restricted and how these restrictions are overcome. Enhanced documentation and two-way communication from the beginning of the audit will improve audit quality.  However, it will also require more co-ordination and collaboration, which may be challenging, particularly for complex groups with many components.   Early communication will be essential to addressing the changes in scope, higher levels of group auditor involvement and in identifying any challenges to this involvement, including restrictions on sharing audit documentation electronically or at all, or restrictions on travel to a specific area.  To fulfil their supervisory role, the group auditor may need to navigate various obstacles, including different time zones and language barriers.  Other practical challenges may include how to ensure that component auditors are part of the discussions required by the other ISA (Ireland) standards, including the fraud discussion required by ISA (Ireland) 240. Professional scepticism The revised standard clarifies how the requirements in ISA 220 (Revised) Quality Control for an audit of financial statements – particularly the importance of professional scepticism – applies to achieving audit quality in a group audit.  The group auditor must exercise professional scepticism by remaining alert to inconsistent information from component auditors, component management and group management, regarding matters that may be significant to the group financial statements.  The group auditor must take appropriate actions when inconsistencies are identified. In addition, the group auditor must emphasise the importance of exercising professional scepticism to each of the engagement team members, including the component auditors.  Exercising professional scepticism at the component level may result in the group engagement partner needing to engage more extensively with component auditors and component management throughout the audit.  Crucial supervisory role The revisions to ISA (Ireland) 600 introduce more requirements for group auditors and their component auditors. This requires increased resources, enhanced communication, increased documentation and a greater emphasis on professional scepticism.  Audit committees and group and component management will also see an increase in the level or type of information required from the group or component auditor so that the group auditor can fulfil their requirements in accordance with ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised.  The need for greater group auditor involvement in the planning and risk assessment stages, and the two-way communication required, highlights the importance for all auditors to understand the new requirements and ensure that they have the skills and resources needed to meet them.  To align with the revised standard, group and component management may see a change in the type or nature of information requested by auditors.  The supervisory role the group auditor plays is crucial to the execution of high-quality group audits.  Both the group auditor and the component auditor will need to be familiar with the new requirements and align their audit methodologies accordingly, while group and component management should be willing to provide the additional information required by the auditor.  While the revisions to ISA (Ireland) 600 will undoubtedly increase the workload of both auditors and group and component management, it will result in higher quality audits. This will, in turn, generate greater benefits to the public interest and may avoid high-profile group audit failures in the future.   Noreen O’Halloran is Principle, Audit Quality and Professional Practice Department, KPMG Ireland