The FPA’s general manager of policy and standards, Dante De Gori, told SMSF Adviser that although the three-year timeframe is not problematic, the phase-out period lacks “action points”.
Mr De Gori said the transition period planners received for the Tax Agent Services Act (TASA) has phases that require specific actions of financial planners.
“The accountants’ exemption is effectively a three-year phase-out, which means there is no incentive… to try and encourage accountants to go before 30 June 2016. So they can continue using the exemption for another two and a half years,” Mr De Gori said.
“We wanted some sort of phased program where those who really wanted to get licensed, and were committed to it, could notify ASIC and ASIC could then start delivering education and training,” he added.
“There [are] effectively no action points within that three-year period to encourage accountants to go through the process and understand their obligations, and there is no awareness for ASIC to understand how many will want to become planners.”
Speaking previously to SMSF Adviser’s sister publication InvestorDaily, Mr De Gori also questioned the decision to restrict the limited licence to accountants who are members of one of the three joint accounting bodies, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, the Institute of Public Accountants, and CPA Australia.
“In terms of a free market type of approach by Treasury or government, it seems to be very restrictive. Why can’t another individual who is an accountant of another accounting body or another association be eligible for this concession?” Mr De Gori asked.
[quote name=”Gerard”]Okat guys let’s get out the boxing gloves.[/quote]
certainly the most intelligent statement here so far Gerard – brilliant!!:):):)
Okat guys let’s get out the boxing gloves.
As an accountant, I think you protesteth too much. It was mostly bankers and financial planners who created the GFC and who cheated consumers out of millions of $. I am safe in saying that few accountants were involved!
I find it amazing that Accountants have any authority to deal with SMSF. Having trained in both fields I can tell you how many times I have had Accountants stuff up things for clients. Heaps. Accountants see SMSF as another entity in which they are charged with the ‘Great’ responsibility of collating and reporting history, full stop. Most accountants attempting to be licensed in this area are dong the bare minimum of RG 146 requirements. Enough rope to be more dangerous for clients than they already are. The phase out cant come quick enough for some unsuspecting clients of over inflated egos.
I find it amazing that Financial planners have any authority to deal with SMSF at all other than to invest the funds. All persons should be relegated to their expertise and training. Having trained in both fields I cannot tell you how many times I have had third party financial planners stuff up things for clients, because many have no knowledge of the facts and no will to seek them out in respect of the clients broader structures and needs. RG 146 is the lowest common denominator of knowing next to nothing!
Wow George and If all financial planners were licensed to give tax advice we could do away with Accountants. Given the ability of Indians and Philippinoes to tally up history at less than the cost of a happy meal I would be far more worried about trying to stay relevant in your own patch. You hint at an inflated view of your relevancy and competency which is telling and illustrates the need for the phase out.
As President of the ATMA I support the comments made by Mr.De Gori regarding the accountants exemption. The ATMA has been in consultation with Treasury for several months now in an attempt to widen the scope of the exempt bodies. The ATMA has been supporting the need for accountants to be adequately trained to provide advice in terms of RG146.
Oh, and another point. What would happen if all accountants were licensed to give financial advice? Would people still go (need to go) to financial planners? I think not. If I was a financial planner I would tread very carefully and try to work with accountant rather than be adversarial. After all who has the clients and who will (needs to ) make referrals?
So the accountant’s exemption phase out is generous? Up until financial planners came under legislative rules (for advising on tax issues) they were given far more generous exemption and now they are whingeing! What a bunch of hypocrites: as far as I am concerned the accountant’s exemption should remain and all financial planning should be done by stockbrokers.
Yes, but the unions and Shorten were not threatened by accountants, hence timeframe. On the other hand “evil” financial planners were the target of Labor & unions.