Thought Leadership articles

The Institute’s latest thought leadership papers outline a series of measures needed to support Ireland’s SMEs, write Cróna Clohisey and Michael Diviney. The Institute has published the latest in its series of thought leadership papers. Supporting SMEs was informed by the views of our 33,000 members and sets out the measures that we believe are needed to achieve strategic, systemic improvements for SMEs operating across Ireland. SMEs make up the vast majority of all businesses in Ireland, and collectively they employ close to seven out of 10 people working in the business economy. It is clear from engagement with members that a critical marker of Ireland’s future economic success will be supporting our SME sector by reducing the cost and complexity of doing business. SMEs have faced an unprecedented number of new legislative requirements in recent months which significantly adds to their cost and administrative burden. In 2024 alone, the minimum wage has increased by 12 percent and additional sick leave entitlements have added one percent to payroll costs. From 1 October, the rate of Employer, Self-Employed and Employee PRSI will increase by 0.1 percent, while pensions auto-enrolment will add a further 1.5 percent in costs during 2025. Supporting SMEs calls on the Government to be cognisant of the challenges all of the above brings. While the measures are extremely important for employees, consideration must be given to the timing of implementing new employment law, and the impact on SMEs when all are introduced within a short timeframe. The paper sets out a series of proposals, grouped under four headings: Resilience and growth; Government supports and funding; Sources of business finance; and Reducing the cost of business through the tax system. Alleviating the administrative and cost burden for SMEs is at the forefront of our asks which include the following proposals: Minimum wage workers, working a full week, should be exempted from Employers’ PRSI. Tax discrimination against professional service companies must end so that they can benefit from the various investment reliefs available to comparable trading companies. Reducing Capital Gains Tax from 33 percent to 25 percent to stimulate business and personal transactions that will bring additional funds into the Exchequer. The real time reporting requirement for enhanced reporting requirements (ERR) for employers should be removed and replaced with monthly or even annual returns. Additionally, we ask for a commitment from Government not to extend ERR for at least three years until the system is embedded and an appropriate cost-benefit analysis of the current system has been properly completed. Chartered Accountants Ireland believes that more resilient businesses will be better positioned to weather crises and uncertainty, and have confidence to invest, to scale, and to create employment. Financial stability is paramount to this. The Institute is calling on Government to support SMEs in accessing finance, optimising governance structures, and investing in developing their workforces. Proposed measures to ensure resilience and the continued growth of this vital sector of the economy include: Widening the eligibility criteria for the broad range of grants available to include more ‘traditional’ industries and the service sector. Ensuring more consistent availability of grants and supports nationwide. Our members tell us that services provided in one part of the country may not be available to similar businesses elsewhere; much depends on the approach and funding at a local level. With the advent of remote working, a common approach to supporting all small businesses, regardless of location, is needed. Promoting healthy competition in the business lending market, by enhancing the role community-based lenders and alternative lenders can play in addition to the pillar banks. It is well documented that record corporation tax receipts will not always be with us and there is a strategic imperative to ensure long-term economic health for SMEs. This can only come from understanding the unique challenges facing them, not simply by virtue of their size, but also specific to the sector they operate in, and supports they need. CCAB-I’s Pre-Budget 2025 submission focuses on supporting and sustaining our SME sector Continuing the focus on the importance of the SME contribution to the Irish economy, the Institute, under the auspices of the CCAB-I, delivered its pre-Budget 2025 submission to Minister McGrath last month. The paper highlights the constraints experienced by SMEs as a result of increasing labour costs and also states that a lack of supply of housing and childcare places, in addition to high personal tax rates, are making it increasingly difficult for people to live and work affordably in Ireland. The submission identifies four key areas for budgetary focus: support SMEs by exempting minimum wage workers from employers’ PRSI and simplifying tax legislation; increase the number of childcare places available and offer working parents a €1,000 tax credit to return to the workforce; introduce a 30 percent intermediate rate of income tax to retain and attract workers and help people live affordably; continue to stimulate and support the completion of new houses. The CCAB-I believes that Ireland’s tax code has become increasingly complex in recent years and is calling for simplification of the tax rules to support businesses, enable them to grow and also ensure that Ireland remains competitive on an international stage. Childcare provision In terms of childcare, the submission includes measures to improve the supply of childcare places for pre-school children. To address the impact of working parents leaving the workforce following the birth of their children on the labour supply, the CCAB-I is calling for the introduction of a €1,000 tax credit for working parents to encourage them to return to the workforce. The CCAB-I also asks that the government plans for adequate capacity in the childcare sector by analysing local needs and ensuring adequate funding for the sector. Income tax reforms The CCAB-I believes that introducing a third rate of income tax of 30 percent would make the system more equitable. Workers in Ireland pay income tax at a rate of 40 percent once they earn €42,000. This entry point is below the average wage and is significantly lower than most countries across the UK and Europe, where incidentally having more than two tax rates is extremely common. We are a mobile profession where many are in the early stages of their careers and are planning their futures. Introducing an intermediate 30 percent rate would make the system more attractive and more equitable, lessening the tax burden on workers and putting more money in their pockets. Housing measures The submission proposes: extending the Help-to-Buy Scheme by two years to 31 December 2027; abolishing vacant homes tax; increasing the rent-a-room relief from €14,000 to €20,000 and removing the cliff-edge; abolishing the non-resident landlord withholding tax system. Cróna Clohisey is Acting Director of Advocacy and Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland Michael Diviney is Head of Thought Leadership at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

CEOs are leveraging M&A for tech-driven growth and market expansion, embodying innovation and sustainability in a dynamic business landscape, explains Fergal McAleavey In the rapidly evolving business landscape of 2024, global CEOs continue to use mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to navigate innovation and transformation across their businesses.  The latest CEO Outlook Pulse Survey from EY shows businesses are engaging in M&A activity with renewed vigour, considering it a strategic support for addressing key priorities. The survey found that acquiring technology, new production capabilities and innovative startups, growing market share and accessing new geographies stood out as the top three strategic drivers for CEOs pursuing M&A. Irish M&A: growth and innovation In Ireland, the M&A landscape is particularly vibrant, with CEOs and investors showing a keen interest in a variety of transaction opportunities, from trade sales to private equity investment to strategic alliances. Ireland's thriving tech sector and business-friendly climate have fuelled a boom in deal-making, outpacing the UK and EU. This is likely to continue as companies pursue innovative technologies and seek to capitalise on the entrepreneurial energy of startups that have scaled. The strategic imperatives for Irish M&A are expected to align with global patterns, emphasising the acquisition of larger market shares, expansion into new markets, and the integration of advanced technology into existing operations. This is especially pertinent for Ireland, given its status as a European tech hub.  Ensuring strategic objectives are met CEOs are also signalling their readiness to streamline their portfolios, shedding assets to address ESG goals and refine their focus for the challenges ahead. Sustainability due diligence is playing an ever-increasing role in M&A transactions to assist buyers and sellers to ensure that those deals are aligned with their own corporate sustainability objectives. This strategic deal-making is not merely a short-term solution but is part of a broader, long-term vision to build resilience and adaptability for an unpredictable future. Irish CEOs' strategy With global funding markets more receptive in 2024, Irish acquirers may find it easier to secure financing for deals and may be the target of larger companies seeking to expand their geographic footprint or product offering. However, they must remain cautious of potential market tightening as political events unfold. For those looking to divest, the market's increasing appetite for acquisitions and the continued resurgence of private equity (PE) could provide favourable conditions. Nonetheless, the timing of PE's full-fledged return to the M&A space remains a little uncertain for large transactions as they await potential interest rate decreases, particularly in the Eurozone and the UK. Irish companies must stay attuned to shifts in monetary policy that could influence the M&A landscape.  To provide corporate sellers with more control over M&A transactions, particularly as a counter-measure to lengthy deal timelines that have become a feature of the M&A market in the last few years, time is well spent by those sellers preparing potential divestment assets for sale, including anticipating issues of particular relevance to likely buyers of those assets and identifying potential regulatory approval requirements that may add to longer deal timelines. Sell-side due diligence of prospective buyers can also be warranted to help flush out any potential roadblocks or delays that may arise from ever-increasing competition law, foreign direct investment and foreign state aid regime requirements.  The M&A momentum for the remaining months of 2024 is characterised by strategic foresight, adaptability, and a commitment to sustainability, as both global and Irish corporate leaders and investors navigate the complexities of a rapidly evolving business world. Fergal McAleavey is Partner of Corporate Finance – Strategy and Transactions at EY

After a decade of little change, the tax regime for research and development in the UK has undergone a ‘credit style’ revamp, writes Liam McHenry  New research and development (R&D) rules for businesses in the UK with an accounting period beginning on or after 1 April 2024 have commenced. These entities are within the remit of the newly merged, research and development expenditure credit (REDC) expenditure scheme – with the exception of “highly R&D-intensive companies”. Companies with over 30 percent of their yearly expenditure qualifying for R&D tax relief can still claim under a restricted version of the SME scheme. Given this high bar, however, it is likely that only small technology start-ups will qualify.  For everyone else, the new rate will provide a benefit worth about 15p per £1 of qualifying expenditure, so not all is lost for those exiting the SME scheme, as a generous tax incentive remains for potential claimants. Reduced complexity? The stated aim of the merged scheme is to reduce complexity for claimants and their advisors. With two schemes remaining post-merger, however, the new scheme is actually more complex than its predecessor.  Subcontracted expenditure had previously been excluded under the RDEC scheme in any meaningful way. Under the new merged scheme, a new system has been put in place with the aim of rewarding whichever party decides to undertake the R&D activity. This adds a new dimension to determining the eligibility of qualifying R&D expenditure insofar as a subcontractor will now need to determine whether they believe their customer knew in advance that a project would require R&D activity. The theory is that this approach will remove the potential for both parties to claim on the same project, but it is easy to see how ambiguity might arise. When agreeing the terms of contracts with customers, claimants must pay additional attention to any clauses relating to intellectual property (IP) generation and whether they indicate that R&D will be required. Taking care at this stage could help claimants identify and preserve their right to claim the corresponding tax relief. Overseas expenditure A restriction on overseas expenditure was also introduced on 1 April 2024. Unless there is a compelling reason why the expenditure could not reasonably have been incurred in the UK, it will not be eligible for inclusion in the claim. However, recognising the unique position of Northern Ireland and its significant integration with the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, claimants can bypass this new restriction. By doing so, they could gain up to a maximum additional benefit of £250,000 every three years. This may require some additional administration, but it is still a welcome reprieve from the restriction, which would have been costly. Increased scrutiny This article offers a summary of the main rule changes coming into effect this month. In reality, there are more of which claimants should be aware. His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has dramatically increased its compliance efforts, with recent revelations from the Public Affairs Committee indicating that upwards of 20 percent of new R&D claims are now under scrutiny. While this fact alone should not be a major concern, it is worth noting that this increased scrutiny often comes with an aggressive stance, beginning with the assumption that R&D claims should be disallowed. The experience of one claimant to another can dramatically vary depending on which caseworker is allocated to the enquiry. Regardless, opening an enquiry can be a prolonged process before a conclusion can be reached. In the event of an unsuccessful enquiry defence, HMRC will be obligated to consider whether any penalties should be levied, depending on whether they determine that the claim was prepared carelessly. In addition, depending on the level of disclosure provided in previous claims made in recent years, HMRC can (and is actively encouraged to) look into these previous claims beyond the normal enquiry window. Planning ahead The implementation of the new R&D tax rules marks a significant shift for businesses heavily reliant on R&D activities for growth and innovation. As businesses adapt to the new regime, strategic planning and collaboration with tax advisors will be essential in maximising the benefits. Liam McHenry is Director of Tax at Grant Thornton

Recent comments by the CEO of America’s biggest bank suggest AGMs are losing power and relevance. David W Duffy delves into the details Annual general meetings (AGMs) are crucial in corporate governance. They are a legal necessity and provide a valuable opportunity for shareholders to speak to leaders. These days, however, criticism is surfacing in some companies that AGMs are becoming a nuisance. Activist pressure So, what exactly is turning the tide on AGMs and their perceived value? In short, the activist pressure exerted recently at some very high profile AGMs.  At Disney’s most recent AGM in early April, for example, shareholders were encouraged to vote in favour of a proposal that would see the entertainment giant pay for services for people choosing to detransition. The Disney proposition had no material impact on the company’s strategy, and JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon took issue.  According to Fortune, Dimon claimed that AGMs were falling victim to “spiralling frivolousness”, dominated by lobbyists, activists and interest groups, which bear little relation to the company’s strategic direction.  There’s no “right or wrong” for a statement like this; it is really just a measure of whether or not other corporate leaders agree.  The leaders of some companies could easily agree with Dimon, especially those at the helm of companies whose AGMs are rife with debate. In companies where AGMs are quieter – sometimes to the point of formality – leaders may not need to worry. Importantly, board members and other stakeholders must remember that anything is possible at an AGM. They could, for example: serve as a hotbed for debate; become a forum for topics considered politically charged (anything from geopolitics to religion to social issues to climate change); feature shareholder proposals put forward solely to make a point, win support or express anger; or seem like a waste of time to corporate leaders because of all the above.  None of this is a given, however. It is far more likely in bigger, global companies – household names consumers feel are so big that their impact stretches beyond their mission statement. In these scenarios, stakeholders generally want the company to take a stance on every political issue, and shareholder proposals at AGMs are part of this. Are AGMs fit for purpose? The threat of any of the above scenarios may mean that some companies’ AGMs are not fit for purpose. It depends on the goals of the people who attend. Companies can’t just get rid of AGMs, however.  AGMs are a cornerstone of business. They often serve as the one opportunity many small shareholders have to speak to the company’s leaders – and, by law, this chance must always be available.  An organisation considering changing its AGM must first examine its articles of association. These are usually where AGM rules like voting procedures and scheduling are found. Beyond this, there may be wiggle room. AGM options It is advisable that leaders and participants accept that the AGM will be active, full of differing opinions and multiple proposals that go nowhere, making it feel like a distraction. If you approach the situation with this prepared mindset, you might find it easier to register the elements of impactful processes beneath the noise.  It’s also advisable to get proactive about issues. You may be better prepared if you anticipate the problems that shareholders are likely to raise and discuss them at the executive and board levels. In the process, you could gain critical insights that shape your understanding of shareholder opinions and frame a more robust conversation. However, if an organisation still wants to change their AGM – and the articles of association allow it – boards can change things like length, the requirement for in-person attendance and the time balance between corporate leaders and shareholders. It must be noted, though, that if a board changes any of these elements, it may appear to be attempting to be creating barriers to debate and shareholders might not respond well. The bright side Many companies have seen their AGMs dominated by activist noise in recent years. While this issue can be addressed by making changes, the bottom line is that the AGM as a concept is here to stay. Organisations should view the “noise” as an invitation to develop relationship management skills and stay on top of emerging trends. These are hugely important for good corporate leaders, and a busy AGM could be the time to flex those muscles. David W Duffy is a founder of the Corporate Governance Institute

Michael Diviney and Níall Fitzgerald explore the ethical challenges arising from artificial intelligence (AI), particularly ‘narrow’ AI, and highlight the importance of ethics and professional competence in its deployment Earlier this year, artificial intelligence (AI) industry leaders, leading researchers and influencers signed a succinct statement and warning: “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.” Was this a publicity stunt? Well, probably not, as the generative AI ChatGPT was already the fastest-adopted application in history.  Was this an over-the-top, alarmist statement by a group possibly trying to steal a march on self-regulation of a rapidly emerging technology and growing industry?  Again, this is unlikely if one considers the warnings of pioneer thinkers like Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, Stephen Hawking and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees. They concur that there is an existential threat to humankind if human-level or ‘general’ AI is developed and the ‘singularity’ is reached when AI surpasses human intelligence.  Autonomous weapons and targeting are a clear risk, but more broadly, unless we can ensure that the goals of a future superintelligence are aligned and remain aligned with our goals, we may be considered superfluous and dispensable by that superintelligence.  As well as the extinction threat, general AI presents other potential ethical challenges.  For example, if AI attains subjective consciousness and is capable of suffering, does it then acquire rights? Do we have the right to interfere with these, including the right to attempt to switch it off and end its digital life?  Will AI become a legal entity and have property rights? After all, much of our economy is owned by companies, another form of artificial ‘person’. Ethical challenges from ‘narrow’ AI Until general AI is here, however – and there is informed scepticism about its possibility – the AI tools currently in use are weak or ‘narrow’ AI. They are designed to perform a specific task or a group of related tasks and rely on algorithms to process data on which they have been trained.  Narrow AI presents various ethical challenges:  Unfairness arising from bias and opacity (e.g. AI used in the initial screening of job candidates include a gender bias based on historical data – in the past more men were hired); The right to privacy (AI trained with data without the consent of the data subjects); Threats to physical safety (e.g. self-driving vehicles); Intellectual property and moral rights, plagiarism and passing-off issues in the use of generative AI like ChatGPT and Bard; and Threats to human dignity from the hollowing out of work and loss of purpose. Regulation vs. ethics Such issues arising from the use of AI, particularly related to personal data, mean that regulation is inevitable.  We can see this, for example, with the EU’s landmark AI Act, due to apply by the end of 2025, which aims to regulate AI’s potential to cause harm and to hold companies accountable for how their systems are used. However, as Professor Pat Barker explained at a recent Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) webinar, until such laws are in place, and in the absence of clear rules, ethics are required for deciding on the right way to use AI.  Even when the regulation is in place, there are likely to be cases and dilemmas that it has not anticipated or about which it is unclear. Legal compliance should not be assumed to have all the ethical issues covered, and as AI is evolving so quickly, new ethical issues and choices will inevitably emerge.  Ethics involves the application of a decision-making framework to a dilemma or choice about the right thing to do. While such a framework or philosophy can reflect one’s values, it must also be objective, considered, universalisable and not just based on an instinctual response or what may be expedient. Established ethics frameworks include: the consequentialist or utilitarian approach – in the case of AI, does it maximise benefits for the greatest number of people?; and the deontological approach, which is based on first principles, such as the inalienable rights of the individual (an underlying philosophy of the EU’s AI Act). (The Institute’s Ethics Quick Reference Guide, found on the charteredaccountants.ie website, outlines five steps to prepare for ethical dilemmas and decision-making.)  A practical approach While such philosophical approaches are effective for questions like “Should we do this?” and “Is it good for society”, as Reid Blackman argues in Harvard Business Review, businesses and professionals may need a more practical approach, asking: “Given that we are going to [use AI], how can we do it without making ourselves vulnerable to ethical risks?”  Clear protocols, policies, due diligence and an emphasis on ethical risk management and mitigation are required, for example responsible AI clauses in agreements with suppliers. In this respect, accountants have an arguably competitive advantage in being members of a profession; they can access and apply an existing ethical framework, which is evolving and adapting as the technology, its opportunities and challenges change.  The Code of Ethics The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) recently revised the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (Code) to reflect the impact of technology, including AI, on the profession. The Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics will ultimately reflect these revisions.  IESBA has identified the two types of AI likely to have the most impact on the ethical behaviour of accountants:  Assisted intelligence or robotic process automation (RPA) in which machines carry out tasks previously done by humans, who continue to make decisions; and  Augmented intelligence, which involves collaboration between human and machine in decision-making. The revisions also include guidance on how accountants might address the risks presented by AI to ethical behaviour and decision-making in performing their role and responsibilities.  Professional competence and due care The Code requires an accountant to ensure they have an appropriate level of understanding relevant to their role and responsibilities and the work they undertake. The revisions acknowledge that the accountant’s role is evolving and that many of the activities they undertake can be impacted by AI.  The degree of competency required in relation to AI will be commensurate with the extent of an accountant’s use of and/or reliance on it. While programming AI may be beyond the competency of many accountants, they have the skill set to:  identify and articulate the problem the AI is being used to solve;  understand the type, source and integrity of the data required; and assess the utility and reasonableness of the output.  This makes accountants well placed to advise on aspects of the use of AI. The Code provides some examples of risks and considerations to be managed by professional accountants using AI, including: The data available might not be sufficient for the effective use of the AI tool. The accountant needs to consider the appropriateness of the source data (e.g. relevance, completeness and integrity) and other inputs, such as the decisions and assumptions being used as inputs by the AI. This includes identifying any underlying bias so that it can be addressed in final decision-making. The AI might not be appropriate for the purpose for which the organisation intends to use it. Is it the right tool for the job and designed for that particular purpose? Are users of the AI tool authorised and trained in its correct use within the organisation’s control framework? (One chief technology officer has suggested not only considering the capabilities of the AI tool but also its limitations to be better aware of the risks of something going wrong or where its use may not be appropriate.) The accountant may not have the ability, or have access to an expert with that ability, to understand and explain the AI and its appropriate use.  If the AI has been appropriately tested and evaluated for the purpose intended. The controls relating to the source data and the AI’s design, implementation and use, including user access. So, how does the accountant apply their skills and expertise in this context?  It is expected that accountants will use many of the established skills for which the profession is known to assess the input and interpret the output of an AI tool, including interpersonal, communication and organisational skills, but also technical knowledge relevant to the activity they are performing, whether it is an accounting, tax, auditing, compliance, strategic or operational business decision that is being made.  Data and confidentiality According to the Code, when an accountant receives or acquires confidential information, their duty of confidentiality begins. AI requires data, usually lots of it, with which it is trained. It also requires decisions by individuals in relation to how the AI should work (programming), when it should be used, how its use should be controlled, etc.  The use of confidential information with AI presents several confidentiality challenges for accountants. The Code includes several considerations for accountants in this regard, including: Obtaining authorisation from the source (e.g. clients or customers) for the use of confidential information, whether anonymised or otherwise, for purposes other than those for which it was provided. This includes whether the information can be used for training AI tools.  Considering controls to safeguard confidentiality, including anonymising data, encryption and access controls, and security policies to protect against data leaks.  Ensuring controls are in place for the coding and updating of the AI used in the organisation. Outdated code, bugs and irregular updates to the software can pose a security risk. Reviewing the security certification of the AI tool and ensuring it is up to date can offer some comfort.  Many data breaches result from human error, e.g. inputting confidential information into an open-access web-based application is a confidentiality breach if that information is saved, stored and later used by that application. Staff need to be trained in the correct use and purpose of AI applications and the safeguarding of confidential information. Dealing with complexity The Code acknowledges that technology, including AI, can help manage complexity.  AI tools can be particularly useful for performing complex analysis or financial modelling to inform decision-making or alerting the accountant to any developments or changes that require a re-assessment of a situation. In doing so, vast amounts of data are collected and used by AI, and the ability to check and verify the integrity of the data introduces another level of complexity.  The Code makes frequent reference to “relevancy” in relation to the analysis of information, scenarios, variables, relationships, etc., and highlights the importance of ensuring that data is relevant to the problem or issue being addressed. IESBA was mindful, when revising the Code, that there are various conceivable ways AI tools can be designed and developed to use and interpret data.  For example, objectivity can be challenged when faced with the complexity of divergent views supported by data, making it difficult to come to a decision. AI can present additional complexity for accountants, but the considerations set out in the Code are useful reminders of the essential skills necessary to manage complexity. Changing how we work As well as its hugely beneficial applications in, for example, healthcare and science, AI is proving to be transformative as a source of business value.  With a range of significant new tools launched daily, from personal effectiveness to analysis and process optimisation, AI is changing how we work. These are powerful tools, but with power comes responsibility. For the professional accountant, certain skills will be brought to the fore, including adaptability, change and risk management, and leadership amidst rapidly evolving work practices and business models. Accountants are well placed to provide these skills and support the responsible and ethical use of AI.  Rather than fearing being replaced by AI, accountants can prepare to meet expectations to provide added value and be at the helm of using AI tools for finance, management, strategic decision-making and other opportunities. Michael Diviney is Executive Head of Thought Leadership at Chartered Accountants Ireland Níall Fitzgerald is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland