Research report 112
The Management of Tax Knowledge
The Management of T ax Knowledge John Hasseldine
University of Nottingham
Kevin Holland
University of Southampton
Pernill van der Rijt
University of Nottingham
Certified Accountants Educational Trust (London)
AcKnowledgeMenTs
The authors wish to acknowledge their appreciation of the individuals and organisations participating in this research, the two anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions, and the Institution of Chemical Engineers and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for their assistance. Also we would like to thank ACCA for their financial support and the following individuals from ACCA for their assistance:
Chas Roy-Chowdhury, Caroline Oades and Katherine Ng.
ISBN: 978-1-85908-455-7
? The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, 2009
contents
Executive summary 5
1. Introduction 7
2. Literature review 8
3. Methodology 12
4. Interview results 13
5. Mail survey results 17
6. Conclusions and policy implications 41 Appendix 1: Interview guide for accounting firms 43 Appendix 2: Online corporate taxpayer questionnaire 45 Appendix 3: Online accounting firms questionnaire 48 Appendix 4: Tables 50 References 54
3 THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX KNOWLEDGE
4
5
THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX KNOWLEDGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ReseARch issues
As important consumers of tax knowledge, corporate
taxpayers’ sources of knowledge are of particular interest, as are the motivating and inhibiting factors in their choice and use of tax knowledge. Besides considering the tax knowledge market in an inter-organisational context, we also look at the intra-organisational market that exists within each corporate taxpayer. How this intra-organisational market is structured, and the motivation of the various parties involved (eg tax experts and non-financial operational decision makers) is of importance. If corporate taxpayers are to respond to tax legislation in the desired manner, whether one looks at it from the
perspective of either shareholders or a tax authority, then adequate knowledge of tax legislation is a prerequisite. The functioning and role of the accountancy firms is examined in the context of how they meet the tax knowledge needs both of corporate taxpayers and of HMRC in its role as a knowledge buyer. Critical to the firms’ capability in this respect is how they generate,
maintain and retrieve their tax knowledge. In supplying this knowledge, it is important that accountancy firms can correctly identify the needs of the particular knowledge buyer.
As noted above, HMRC’s primary role is that of knowledge supplier, with respect to the content of legislation, its
interpretation or the associated administrative processes. Nonetheless, HMRC simultaneously acts as a knowledge ‘buyer’, both in its role of determining whether taxpayers have complied with legislation, and when it acts in a consultative capacity in the assessment of existing and proposed legislation and administrative processes. ReseARch MeThod
In examining the operation of the tax knowledge market, and in particular the issues raised above, a combination of research methods was employed: in-depth interviews and two questionnaire surveys.
The first stage of the research involved 26 in-depth interviews with the staff of the three parties in the tax
knowledge market: corporate taxpayers (13), accountancy firms (8) and HM Revenue and Customs (5).
The sample of corporate taxpayers comprised companies drawn from a range of industries in order to increase coverage of the potential range of tax-related issues. Although attempts were also made to ensure that
companies of different sizes were represented, the actual sample was finally determined by the interviewees available, and the majority of these were employees of UK-based multinationals.
Corporation tax can influence a firm’s operating and
financial decisions, not only by the direct imposition of the tax itself, but also indirectly though associated compliance costs. Firms can attempt to reduce the impact of taxation, both through tax planning and by ensuring that compliance-related tasks are carried out efficiently. It goes without saying that tax knowledge is an important determinate of successful corporate tax planning.
Paradoxically, governments may also desire firms to be aware of, or sensitive to, tax legislation. This may be in order to reduce administrative and compliance costs and, if tax legislation is being employed as a public policy tool, to change or encourage particular actions or activities, such as investment in research and development-related activities.
An important dimension of an efficient tax system is the processes by which taxpayers become aware of tax
legislation and other tax-related information, referred to for the purposes of this research as ‘tax knowledge’. The TAx sysTeM And The MARKeT foR TAx Knowledge
Within any tax system there are clearly identified
participants. Their roles can be examined in the context of a market for knowledge, tax knowledge. Such markets typically consist of producers, buyers and brokers. In the UK, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is the knowledge producer, corporate taxpayers are the knowledge buyers, while accountancy firms (and other similar parties) perform, in their role of tax advisers, the function of knowledge brokers. At various stages, the parties’ roles may change; for example, in some settings corporate
taxpayers may act as knowledge suppliers to accountancy firms acting as knowledge buyers.
A distinctive feature of the market for tax knowledge is that it can be described as relatively non-competitive when compared with other knowledge markets, such as
management consultancy, where a far greater proportion of traded knowledge is proprietary. An important question is, therefore, the nature of the interactions between the three parties comprising the tax knowledge market. The aim of this research is to describe those interactions and provide a set of practical suggestions to improve the operation of this particular market.
executive summary
The functional responsibilities of the interviewees were primarily accounting or finance-based, although other functions, such as human resources, were also represented. At the outset, attempts were made to ensure appropriate representation of these other functions, but although the accounting or tax contacts employed by the corporate taxpayers attempted to facilitate interview access with staff from other departments, only a small number of such interviews took place. This may indicate reluctance on the part of such individuals to recognise the importance of, or to participate in discussions of, tax-related matters, an issue that is explored in this research. The accountancy firms interviewed cover the full size range from sole principal to Big Four practices. Geographical coverage was broad, with interviews taking place in London, two other cities and two towns across England and Wales. The majority of staff interviewed were tax specialists, although the sample did include knowledge management specialists and individuals with general responsibilities that included tax.
Within HM Revenue and Customs the interviewees represented a range of responsibilities. In addition to staff with direct taxpayer responsibilities, interviews took place with knowledge management specialists and staff with policy and practice responsibilities. Again, the geographical coverage was broad, although a number of staff were based in London because of their policy responsibilities and HM Revenue and Customs’ organisational structure.
The second stage of the research was the two mail surveys. These were administered electronically via the Internet to samples of corporate taxpayers and to individuals working within accountancy firms. Unfortunately, two other mail surveys targeting human resource mangers and engineers attracted an insufficient response despite the assistance and support of associated professional institutes.
There were a total of 445 responses to the two surveys. These complemented the interviews, because the 223 corporate taxpayers that responded represented a broader size distribution than the interview sample. The majority of the 222 responses from accountancy firms were single-office partnerships, again complementing the interview sample.Key findings
The perception of tax specialists within both corporate taxpayers and accountancy firms is that the level of tax awareness among operational decision makers within corporate taxpayers is low. This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of these individuals are required to consider the tax effects of their decisions. As one might expect, the level of tax awareness among operational decision makers was higher among corporate taxpayers with internal tax experts. A challenge for all parties is how to raise awareness of taxation issues among operational decision makers.
It is, however, unclear what drives the decision to employ internal tax experts, and in turn the resulting level of tax awareness among operational decision makers. Although the presence of such internal experts was positively associated with taxpayer size, it was not associated with either perceived demand for tax knowledge or the level of tax complexity facing corporate taxpayers.
Although the majority of corporate taxpayers describe their relationships with HMRC as being ‘good’, only about a quarter consider they have sufficient opportunities to share knowledge with HMRC.
Only a small majority of corporate taxpayers (57%) agree that capturing internally generated tax knowledge is an important aspect of the tax function’s role. Where procedures do exist to capture knowledge, the corporate taxpayers’ attitude to their importance is not reflected in whether these procedures are formal or informal. The presence of such procedures is associated with access to tax expertise, either internal or an external source. Operational decision makers within corporate taxpayers are not seen as reliable sources of knowledge relevant to tax decisions, either in terms of the timing of such decisions or their level of detail.
HMRC may be missing opportunities to learn from corporate taxpayers because, as noted above, corporate taxpayers perceive there to be a lack of opportunity to share information with HMRC. The perception is strongest among those corporate taxpayers using internal tax specialists, so the issue may be one of a lack of awareness rather than opportunity.
Corporate taxpayers employ external tax advisers for a number of reasons, but the principal motivation is simply to minimise their tax liability. Risk identification by tax advisers is also highly valued, as is their risk-shifting or insurance protection role. Accountancy firms recognise the importance of insurance-motivated demand for their services, although to a lesser extent than corporate taxpayers.
6
Empirical tax research in accounting has, until recently, been largely quantitative, and focused on issues of tax policy, tax compliance and tax planning (Mulligan and Oats 2008). This previous research has made a large contribution to our understanding of technical tax issues and the various factors that affect the investment, financing and compliance decisions of taxpayers, both corporate and personal. In conjunction with this quantitative methodology, prior research in taxation has also tended to focus on only one party in the tax environment, such as the multinational firm or the individual taxpayer, tax accountant or tax official.
In this project we sought to explore the relationships between the UK tax agency, HMRC, corporate taxpayers and accounting firms. Some scholars have sought to study these relationships in a compliance setting (see Braithwaite 2003) but with the exception of recent work on large corporations by Oats and Tuck (2008), they have not addressed how knowledge is shared between the key parties in the tax environment.
In business, knowledge is now considered to be one of the most critical factors in establishing and maintaining competitive advantage (Conner and Prahalad 1996; Grant 1996a; Teece 1998; Hansen, Nohria and Tierney 1999; Quinn 1999; Dyer and Nobeoka 2000; Osterloh and Frey 2000; Douglas 2002; Riege 2005). Sharing, creating and applying knowledge is crucial to organisational success. Not only is it important that such processes take place within organisations, but it is also vital that knowledge is shared between organisations (Choo 1998; Ernst 2000). To the best of our knowledge, this project is the first to focus on the management of tax knowledge within UK firms. Our aim is to determine how firms develop and use tax knowledge, and in particular the processes by which externally derived tax legislation is incorporated into firms’ tax knowledge along with internally generated knowledge based on experience. We are especially interested in the following aspects.
What determines the categories of tax knowledge
?
within a firm, and what is the role of external tax
advisers in this respect?
What information sources do firms use to construct tax ?
knowledge?
How is tax knowledge retained and its relevance
?
ensured?
How do various parties access tax knowledge?
? The remainder of this report is structured as follows. In the following chapter we provide some background and context to the field of knowledge management, and describe the relationship between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), accounting firms and corporate taxpayers in the context of knowledge markets. We also briefly outline the processes of knowledge sharing and the potential barriers to and facilitators of these processes. In Chapter 3 we describe our methodology. Chapters 4 and 5 respectively report our interview findings and survey results. Conclusions and policy implications are provided in Chapter 6.
1. introduction
7 THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX KNOWLEDGE 1. INTRODUCTION
BAcKgRound
Knowledge management is a multidisciplinary profession that has established a relatively strong position in various disciplines, such as economics, organisation studies, business and management, communication science, and information technology. In the field of taxation, little attention is given to knowledge management research, although several UK researchers have used interview-based approaches in studying parties in the tax environment (HMRC 2007; Tuck 2007; Mulligan 2008; Toumi 2008). Hasseldine and Holland (2005) have identified four characteristics of the Corporation Tax system which impose significant compliance and related tax planning costs on companies. These characteristics have knowledge management consequences as they must all be managed within the tax function of firms; they are: (1) the complexity of legislation; (2) uncertainty over the nature of the administrative requirements; (3) awareness and interpretation of changes in legislation and administrative procedures; and (4) the administrative effort required to satisfy a particular item of legislation.
It seems that neither taxation research nor other research disciplines pay much attention to knowledge management issues in the taxation profession. Furthermore, current research on knowledge management is largely aimed at explaining and facilitating intra-organisational processes of knowledge sharing (Szulanski 2000; O’Dell and Grayson 1998; Hansen et al. 1999; Tsai 2002; Riege 2005). Studies that are conducted in the field of inter-organisational knowledge sharing primarily focus on cooperation processes between competitors (Loebecke et al. 1999; Bengtsson and Kock 2000; Sjogren and Fay 2002; Loebbecke and Angehrn 2003; Foti 2004) and on strategic alliances (Kale et al. 2000; Phan and Peridis 2000). A specific area in research on inter-organisational knowledge sharing that has been underexposed so far concerns the relationship between non-competitive organisations. There are a small number of publications about the link between the inter- and intra-organisational processes of knowledge sharing.
Our study contributes by starting to fill these gaps. The central aim of our study is to seek insight into how developments in tax legislation in the UK are captured by companies and are incorporated into their tax knowledge. The institutions that play a crucial role in the implementation of tax knowledge are the government and more specifically HMRC, accounting firms and corporate taxpayers. These organisations do not compete with each other; instead, they have a relationship of mutual dependency which enables the successful implementation of new legislation, and are considered to be willing to share knowledge for this purpose. The study focuses on exploring both processes of knowledge sharing between organisations, and on the implementation and use of knowledge within each of these organisations. Relevant themes that are addressed are the mutual understanding between these organisations, the way they share and incorporate tax knowledge, and the conditions under which they do so.Apart from the theoretical considerations just mentioned the study also has practical relevance. We argue that our study could well benefit HMRC, accounting firms and corporate taxpayers. For example, more insight into how accounting firms and corporate taxpayers implement the changes in tax legislation could result in their applying the legislation more successfully, particularly when the legislation has a desired behavioural objective. This may benefit HMRC in terms of cost effectiveness, both through lower administrative costs and higher efficacy in making accounting firms and corporate taxpayers comply with regulations. Similarly, accounting firms and corporate taxpayers may experience lower compliance costs. Knowledge MARKeTs
The relationship between the three parties in our study that are involved in communicating, implementing, and utilising changes in tax legislation – HMRC, accounting firms, and corporate taxpayers – can be placed in a knowledge management context by using Davenport and Prusak’s view on knowledge markets (2000). In these markets, the authors argue, knowledge is regarded as an economic asset and several players are active in the transactions of this asset. These players are described as knowledge buyers, sellers, and brokers. Knowledge buyers are people who actively seek knowledge. Knowledge sellers are defined as people who share knowledge with others, in return for (financial) compensation. Finally, knowledge brokers are people who connect buyers and sellers. All three types of players aim to benefit from exchanging knowledge. Davenport and Prusak (2000: 27) mention that ‘an individual can perform all three roles in a single day and sometimes play more than one role simultaneously’. Davenport and Prusak (2000) define knowledge markets at the organisational level and their players at the individual level. Nonetheless, we believe that knowledge markets may also operate on an inter-organisational level, with organisational instead of individual players. In this respect, the relationships between the three major parties that are involved in our study can be perceived as a knowledge market in tax legislation. HMRC, who develops and communicates new tax legislation, can be regarded as a knowledge seller. As a knowledge seller, HMRC is eager to receive feedback from corporate taxpayers and accounting firms, in order to optimise its processes. HMRC aims to collect tax ‘efficiently and fairly while minimising the administrative burden to business and individuals’ (HMRC 2009).
We’ve set up a number of forums to help us exchange
views and ideas on the best ways to manage and improve the way we work with taxpayers, businesses and agents.
These forums have representatives from business and the professions and others who have an interest in what we do. (HMRC 2009)
2. literature review
8
9
THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX KNOWLEDGE 2. LITERATURE REVIEW part of knowledge originates almost entirely from client assignments’ (Sarvary 1999: 97). So the (sometimes confidential) information that accounting firms acquire while working for corporate taxpayers can be used not only to the benefit of the corporate taxpayer, but also their own benefit. The knowledge-intensive character of accounting firms also involves challenges within the
relationships between these firms and HMRC. Accounting firms are likely to be eager to build and sustain strong relationships with HMRC.
The supposed relationships between the three parties in our study are visualised in Figure 2.1.figure 2.1: Tax knowledge market
Knowledge shARing
Processes of inter-organisational knowledge sharing are unmistakeably connected to intra-organisational processes of knowledge sharing. As Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995: 72) state: ‘organizational knowledge creation is a spiral process, starting at the individual level and moving up through expanding communities of interaction, that crosses sectional, departmental, divisional, and organizational boundaries’.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) refer to knowledge creation instead of knowledge sharing because knowledge cannot be objectively shared. By using the term ‘creation’, they distinguish their view on knowledge sharing from a more traditional, technological approach. According to the
technological approach on knowledge sharing, knowledge can be stored in and extracted from ICT applications. For example, Milner mentions that an intranet is:
commonly referred to as the internal information and
knowledge engine of all types of organisations, networked across offices, locations and, in some instances, national boundaries. Properly constructed, it should offer, at appropriate levels of security clearance, a way of
Both corporate taxpayers and accounting firms are
organisations that are likely to seek knowledge about new tax legislation. In this respect, they can be defined as knowledge buyers.
Accounting firms, however, may also have the role of knowledge brokers. They are considered to function as intermediaries between corporate taxpayers (knowledge buyers) and HMRC (knowledge seller), a role that can also be described as ‘gatekeeping’ or ‘boundary spanning’ (Choo 1998). For example, as gatekeepers, accounting firms can be helpful in representing clients’ interests in communicating with HMRC. As KPMG states:
We are at the forefront of public debate on tax policy, regulation and the changing attitude to tax, pensions and corporate governance. We believe in strong open relationships with both tax and wider regulatory
authorities. We give constructive independent views on behalf of our clients, and the wider business community (KPMG 2009).
Furthermore, corporate taxpayers may decide to hire the expertise of accounting firms as external advisers when they find that they do not possess sufficient knowledge about how to comply with legislation or how to benefit optimally from tax reliefs. A claim that is relevant to many companies is the Research and Development (R&D) tax relief. Accounting firms can support companies claiming for such an R&D tax relief. For example,
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) describes how:
Our team of specialists work closely with clients to submit R&D claims and put in place effective and long-term reporting systems to help companies comply with all relevant HMRC requirements. Such an approach
eliminates HMRC scrutiny over future claims and also translates into time and cost savings (PwC 2009). In this respect, accounting firms fulfil a consultancy role. Management literature has focused on the mediating role of consultancy firms in sharing knowledge. Although
empirical research on this topic is relatively scarce (Sturdy 1997), the existing body of literature is applicable to our study, for it shows, among other things, that ‘knowledge is the core asset of consultancies’ (Hansen et al. 1999: 106). Consultancy firms, like accounting firms, offer their clients intangible assets (Sturdy 1997). These assets, however, are not necessarily unique. Clients may be well able to acquire or develop comparable assets without the intervention of consultancy firms. This is why consultancy firms ‘need to claim superior expertise to maintain their value and
competitive position’ (Fincham 2002: 80). Obviously, this has interesting implications for the relationships between accounting firms and corporate taxpayers, especially with respect to the mutual dependency and communication flows between these two parties (Sturdy 1997; Sarvary 1999; Fincham 2002). Accounting firms are continuously in the process of acquiring and developing new knowledge in order to be able to offer their clients services with added value and maintain their competitive advantage. A
distinctive aspect of consultancy is that, ‘the most valuable
empowering an employee to navigate the most suitable, and value-adding path through the organisation’s
operating structure, information holdings and knowledge base (Milner 2000: 112).
According to more interactive views on knowledge sharing, such as that of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), exchanging knowledge implies that people both contribute and collect (Grant 1996b; Ardichvili et al. 2003; Van der Rijt 2007). Contributing parties try to convey their personal knowledge to others. For these other parties, however, this knowledge is just impersonal material that needs to be interpreted before it acquires meaning. The knowledge that results from this interpretation process has unique personal features, and is therefore never completely identical to the knowledge of the contributing party (Conner and Prahalad 1996). In other words, knowledge is initially created through interpersonal interaction and processes of personal interpretation.1 Knowledge may also develop on other levels than the individual level, for example when it is shared in a group. Likewise, knowledge can be shared within and between organisational and inter-organisational levels. On each of these levels processes of interpretation take place. This entails an extra challenge for knowledge brokers, such as the accounting firms in our study, who need to ‘understand the coding schemes used on both sides of the perimeter, enabling them to recognize information on one side and disseminate it on the other side’ (Choo 1998: 145).
In the creation of knowledge, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) argue that different types of knowledge interact with each other. In this respect, they refer to the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge can be described as knowledge that is difficult to articulate, while explicit knowledge is easier to express. Owing to its more objective and abstract character, explicit knowledge leaves less room for personal interpretation than tacit knowledge. This makes explicit knowledge easier to share.
Changes in tax legislation are assumed to be communicated in a clear-cut and straightforward way, since it is considered that all parties involved with these changes should interpret them similarly and apply the new legislation in a correct manner.2 So the knowledge that is shared on the inter-organisational level is expected to have a relatively explicit nature. Even so, the intra-organisational processes by which new tax legislation is interpreted and incorporated by organisations are expected to add tacitness to this explicit knowledge. Accounting firms and corporate taxpayers, for example, give meaning to HMRC’s new (explicit) tax legislation. By combining this new information with existing knowledge (Choo 1998), they
1. In this perspective, the term ‘knowledge sharing’ is most frequently used for describing processes of knowledge creation. We continue to use the term, therefore, in this report.
2. Although the authors note that there might be incentives for legislation to be ambiguous, thereby increasing the uncertainty and therefore taxpayer costs, eg in the field of anti avoidance. may develop new ideas and find yet unexplored opportunities in applying the new legislation. Again, this is particularly relevant for accounting firms, when considering their role as knowledge brokers. Even though HMRC provides similar knowledge to all accounting firms, these firms can distinguish themselves from and gain competitive advantage over other accounting firms by creating new knowledge. Choo states:
The organization evaluates new knowledge in relation to its beliefs about how the application of the knowledge
will enhance its competitive position, its interpretations about how the market will react to new products or
services, and its expectation about how the new
capability matches its longer-term goals and vision.
(1998: 149)
In successfully acquiring and using external knowledge, the organisation’s internal capabilities, skills, prior knowledge, and motivation play an important role (Choo 1998).
BARRieRs And fAciliTAToRs
Prior research suggests that there are many different factors that either positively or negatively influence processes of knowledge sharing in and between organisations. In order to fully understand and potentially improve processes of knowledge sharing, it is important to know the barriers to and facilitators of such processes. Szulanski (2000) formulates several factors that influence the transfer of knowledge and best practices in organisations. For example, he mentions the motivation of the knowledge source; the perceived reliability of the source; motivation of the knowledge recipient; the absorptive, retentive and innovative capacity of this recipient; and the strength of ties between source and recipient. Further, the author mentions that a supportive organisational context has an important role in successful processes of knowledge transfer (Szulanski 2000: 11–2). Riege (2005) makes distinctions between other types of potential barriers to successful knowledge-sharing processes, many of which are similar to Szulanski’s. Riege (2005) identifies three types of potential barriers. First, Riege considers potential individual barriers, such as lack of time, lack of trust, and demographic differences. Second, he mentions a range of potential organisational barriers, for example lack of leadership, an unsupportive culture, and internal competition. Finally, he looks at potential technological barriers, including lack of technological support and insufficient technological training.
10
Comparable barriers are characterised by Hinds and Pfeffer (2003), although they distinguish between cognitive and motivational barriers to knowledge sharing. Cognitive barriers occur when people are not able to share knowledge, even when they want to. This can be related to several factors, such as an inadequate level of knowledge-sharing skills and opportunities, a lacuna in expertise between sharing parties, and characteristics of the knowledge that is shared. Motivational barriers, on the other hand, occur when people are not willing to share knowledge, even though they may be able. This may arise when they feel that they do not benefit enough from doing so. Such a benefit can be financial, intellectual, reputational or can be related to the improvement of career or enhancement of power. Further, the unwillingness to share knowledge can also be related to poor social relationships (Szulanski 2000; Riege 2005; Van der Rijt 2007).
In the context of public accounting firms, Vera-Mu?oz et al. (2006) focus on how to enhance processes of knowledge sharing. They argue that information technology systems can facilitate such processes, given that employees are able to work with the available systems. Further, they point out that personal interactions within teams of auditors may be either facilitators or barriers. Factors that play a role in this respect are organisational culture, procedural justice (fairness of decision-making processes) and trust, role conflict and role ambiguity, supervision and feedback, and a match between organisational culture and individual characteristics. Finally, the authors focus on the role of intrinsic and extrinsic reward systems in enhancing knowledge sharing.
The literature that focuses on intra-organisational contexts can be applied to inter-organisational contexts. For example, HMRC may experience problems sharing certain tax knowledge with the industry when companies are unaware of its relevance. Conversely, companies may find that they are having difficulty communicating about tax legislation with HMRC owing to a difference in levels of tax expertise.
Studies identifying factors that influence knowledge-sharing processes in inter-organisational contexts generally give explicit attention to competition in inter-organisational knowledge sharing. For instance, Stonehouse et al. (2001:130) mention facilitators that are aimed at developing ‘knowledge more quickly than an organisation’s competitors’, limiting ‘the capability of competitors to develop new knowledge’, and developing or acquiring ‘the knowledge which is the source of competitive edge’. Such factors are less applicable to our study, since the parties involved in the study are not involved in competitive battles with each other.Nonetheless, on the basis of the literature that focuses on the relationship between consultancy firms and their clients in general, specific factors that may influence the knowledge flows between accounting firms and corporate taxpayers can be distinguished. Fincham studied power dimensions between consultants and clients. His study (2002) shows that clients are not necessarily dependent on consultants’ knowledge, but that consultants heavily rely on their clients. For example, to ensure that their work with a particular client continues, consultants seek internal support in the clients’ firm, avoid internal parties that may undermine their work (such as internal departments that are able to offer similar services), and settle for solutions with which the client is happy (Fincham 2002). This means that consultants (such as accounting firms) are dependent on the knowledge of clients’ (such as corporate taxpayers) in order to remain in control and successfully communicate with these clients.
An empirical study by Sturdy (1997) also sheds light on the often complex, underlying motives for knowledge sharing between consultants and their clients. He argues that the relationship between the parties is an interactive process. Clients intentionally hire, and communicate with, consultants. They do this for several reasons, such as for legitimising decisions, strengthening their position, and achieving goals. Consultants, on the other hand, offer their clients the reassurance they need, for example by normalising problems and solutions. Even so, they also try to reinforce their clients’ uncertainty by pointing out new problems that need to be solved. This is a precarious balancing act. It may secure future work, but they also risk losing their clients’ support.
Finally, another potentially important barrier that corporate taxpayers may experience in deciding whether to share knowledge with accounting firms is the fact that accounting firms are likely to (re-)use the knowledge that they acquire as a result of working for the corporate taxpayer in future projects, possibly even for other clients (Sarvary 1999). Sarvary explains, ‘Knowledge is, before anything else, about learning. In consulting, learning takes place in the field at the clients’ premises. The more clients a firm has, the more experience it can acquire and the larger the base for knowledge creation’ (1999: 104). Corporate taxpayers thus estimate whether or not they are confident that accounting firms will not disclose confidential information to others, and accounting firms need to convince corporate taxpayers of their trustworthiness.
11
THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX KNOWLEDGE 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
inTeRviews
The goal of our study is to gain more insight into inter- and intra-organisational processes of knowledge sharing about new tax legislation. For this purpose, a total of 19 explorative, in-depth interviews were conducted with employees from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), accounting firms, and corporate taxpayers throughout the UK. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Subsequently, the transcripts were coded and analysed with the help of NVivo software.
Three employees from HMRC were interviewed. The accounting firms that were selected for participation in the study include those from the ‘Big Four’, those from medium-sized practices, and from a single-office partnership and a sole proprietor. In these accounting firms, seven employees were interviewed. We identified several key factors and requirements for the purpose of selecting corporate taxpayers to participate in the project. Factors used in selecting potential firms were: the degree of regulation, the degree of capital intensity, increases in R&D expenditure, making a tax loss, firm size, foreign presence and partnership status.
Also, in securing a minimum level of regulatory responsibility, firms were required to be quoted. Firms were identified in the following industries: manufacturing; wholesale, retail, trade; transport and communication; government; and electricity, gas, water. Datastream and FAME databases were used to select organisations for participation in the project by reference to the characteristics identified above. The organisations were contacted by telephone and email. Ultimately, nine organisations in several fields agreed to participate.
The interviewees were all occupied in the field of taxation and/or knowledge management. As shown in Appendix 4, Table A1 (see page 51), 11 interviews were conducted face-to-face, and eight interviews were conducted by telephone. Most face-to-face interviews were conducted by two interviewers, the telephone interviews by one interviewer. All interview transcripts and coded summaries were read by at least two of the researchers.
In total, three different interview guides were designed for conducting the interviews: one for HMRC, one for the accounting firms (shown in Appendix 1 as an illustration), and one for the corporate taxpayers. An interview guide is different from an interview questionnaire as there is no strict order to the questions that are asked. In addition, the precise formulation of questions can vary between interviews. Interviews conducted with an interview guide have a relatively open character and the course of the interview is largely determined by the information that is provided by the interviewee. The guide lists several topics and focal points that enable the interviewers to steer the interview. A variety of subjects were covered, including: communication flows about new tax legislation between HMRC, accounting firms and corporate taxpayers; communication flows about new tax legislation within HMRC, accounting firms and corporate taxpayers’ firms; and barriers to and facilitators of knowledge sharing within and between organisations. The results of the interviews are outlined in Chapter 4.
MAil suRvey
Following the interview phase, we developed two questionnaires to further explore the emerging findings of the interviews and the predictions made by previous literature. The first questionnaire was directed at corporate taxpayers (CT) and the second was aimed at tax advisers working in accounting firms (AF).
Both draft questionnaires were piloted in a business school and among members of the UK Taxation Research Network, and several minor modifications to the questionnaires were made as a consequence. The two questionnaires are reproduced in Appendix 2 (CT) and Appendix 3 (AF).
Rather than opt for a mail survey using printed matter and incurring postage, ACCA kindly agreed to email members of two sub-groupings: members in the Corporate Sector panel received an email link to the corporate taxpayer’s questionnaire, and members of the Practitioner’s Network received an email link to the accounting firm’s questionnaire.3 Both questionnaires were hosted on https://www.doczj.com/doc/e210110904.html,. There were 223 responses to the corporate taxpayers’ questionnaire and 222 responses to the accounting firms’ questionnaire. Analyses of both questionnaires are presented and discussed in Chapter 5.
3. This research design choice meant we were unable to investigate the knowledge management structure in the non-affiliated agent population (which could be quite a different dynamic owing to the lack of continuing professional development etc).
3. Methodology
12
In Chapter 2, we framed the potential relationships between the parties involved in our study by referring to a knowledge market (Davenport and Prusak 2000). The usual players in such a knowledge market are sellers, buyers and brokers; HMRC was identified as a knowledge seller, accounting firms were defined as knowledge brokers, and corporate taxpayers as knowledge buyers. Besides focusing on the knowledge flows between these organisations, we also pointed out the significance of knowledge flows that take place within each of these organisations. Some interesting findings with regard to these inter- and intra-organisational knowledge flows emerged from our empirical study.
The initial observations that arose from the 19 interviews that were analysed are summarised in Tables 2, 3, and 4 (see Appendix 4) on the basis of the following themes:
motives for and benefits of knowledge flows
?
methods and procedures adopted on knowledge flows ?
barriers to knowledge flows.
?
In this chapter a series of interviewee responses are reported which illustrate some of the issues involved. First, we discuss the relationship between intra- and inter-organisational processes of knowledge sharing in the knowledge market, paying particular attention to facilitators of and barriers to these processes. Next, we pay specific attention to the role of accounting firms as knowledge brokers in the knowledge market.
PRocesses of Knowledge shARing
In line with our expectations, inter-organisational knowledge flows appear to be crucial for the creation of intra-organisational knowledge and vice versa. For instance, HMRC interviewees mentioned the importance of the contributions of accounting firms to their internal training sessions. They also reported their appreciation at receiving feedback from both accounting firms and corporate taxpayers, as this feedback provides opportunities to improve tax legislation, in which case issues of timing become relevant, as the following quotations show.
We had a case study that was drawn up jointly with the Big Four accountancy firms. We focused on a software
case study, where the inspectors in syndicate groups
worked through the case study and looked at typical
questions arising about the R&D claim. And in each
syndicate group there was a software specialist from one of the Big Four accountancy firms, who helped the
inspectors to understand the issues in making a claim.
(HMRC interviewee 1)
The initial impetus was to get the guidance out to the
outside world first, because the way it works is that
companies will formulate their claims and they needed
the guidance first. And then the inspector needed the
guidance in handling the claims after they came in. So
you look to giving the guidance to the outside world
before you give it to the inspectors really. You give the
inspectors overviews of guidance. (HMRC interviewee 1) One item that’s always on the agenda is ‘Are you getting any feedback from companies making claims about how we could improve the system, about any expenses that
we might be missing that are genuine R&D expenses that we’re not giving relief for?’ And I think the inspectors as they go out visiting companies are putting across this
message to the companies, ‘If you want to influence the way the scheme is run or how it’s designed, then by all
means tell us’. (HMRC interviewee 1)
Identification of target audiences and timing of the knowledge flow are important considerations for HMRC in its external communications. HMRC uses knowledge brokers such as accounting firms to distribute knowledge among their (potential) clients and will also in some cases seek to make contact with knowledge buyers directly.
[W]e had doubts over the coverage, as to whether we
were getting everybody who might be interested. For
example, it was almost self-selecting; you would try and find people who were carrying out [a particular activity] already and advise them how to make a claim. (HMRC
interviewee 1)
[T]hey are looking at the patent applications made,
identifying which are in the field of science and
technology and then trying to find out whether the
companies have claimed relief for the work in developing those patent applications.…[T]hey have identified an
issue with a number of companies that aren’t making
claims but should be making claims, and they’re going to approach them and invite them to make claims. (HMRC interviewee 1).
Similarly, corporate taxpayer interviewees (CTs) indicated that they use external sources to acquire and develop internal tax knowledge. In turn, the interviews show that intra-organisational knowledge flows are essential for successful inter-organisational flows of knowledge. Only with the appropriate knowledge flows, are companies able to use this knowledge to their benefit. In this respect, several interviewees mentioned that their company is often dependent on non-tax professionals in-house to make successful tax claims. Consequently, internal knowledge buyers and sellers can be identified. Depending on the direction of intra-organisational knowledge flows, the identities of internal knowledge buyers and sellers can be interchangeable.
4. interview results
13 THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX KNOWLEDGE 4. INTERVIEW RESULTS
Sharing [tax knowledge] with[in] the businesses is
obviously one of the tricky things that I have to deal with because…I am actually reliant on accountants of the
businesses who aren’t actually tax people, to do a lot of the basic tax work.…[I]t is helpful if they have some tax knowledge. But on the other hand, you don’t want to so overburden them with tax knowledge that either they
can’t cope or, frankly, it’s something that they only do
once a year and…you can’t expect them to sort of give
their all to it if they’re not going to use it again for a year.
(CT interviewee 2)
Conflicts can arise if the tax professionals in the organisation are not fully informed of the context of the claim, and there are alternative or competing non-tax professionals who have different incentives. Avoiding such conflicts requires a certain level of knowledge, and this has implications for delegating decision making to the appropriate level.
[Operational decision makers] have other sources … a great number of them probably know quite a lot about
R&D tax credits because as you can imagine, people out in the market are often trying to sell them R&D tax credit work.…As far as they’re concerned, they’re tax-paying
because they have to pay for their group relief. So they’re tax-paying, so they can see the benefit of it. But of
course, [from] a group perspective, where the group isn’t tax-paying, it actually isn’t worth anything to us. So you have to…say ‘well hang on’…And they…phone me up
and…say ‘I’m just about to engage this person to come and do this work for me, that’s all right, is it? And we’re
going to pay them; that’s all right, isn’t it?’. (CT
interviewee 2)
The following quotes show that the successful transfer of knowledge can be improved by the appropriate motivation and use of subject experts, both internally and externally. For instance, a particular seller can add credibility to a particular transfer.
One thing we do, and we’ve always been very keen to do, is use visits from HMRC to…actually take them out to
departments, to make departments realise that [tax] is a real issue. And it puts the departments on edge, which
probably isn’t a good thing but it makes them realise that tax is serious.…we are quite keen to make sure that
HMRC are visible on visits [when] we take them round.
(CT interviewee 7)
Because they [ie subject experts] know…they can talk
about the technology and then the finance teams often aren’t technological in background and actually struggle to understand the technology, let alone understand the R&D regime. So if we can go straight to the technologists and speak to them in technology language, then that still takes the process [ie time]. And that’s partly why we
bring in our own technologist. (AF interviewee 3). Corporate taxpayers may take into account legal considerations that influence the form in which knowledge is retained, and even influence whether it is created.
There’s another area of concern, which is that of
discoverability of documentation. Most companies have no problem at all in making factual information available to revenue authorities. I think where companies start to have a problem is [with] expressions of opinion, either
internally or prepared by advisers.…if we go out [of the
company] for advice, much of that expression of opinion is not privileged unless it’s within very confined sort of
parameters involving lawyers. And therefore there’s a lot of concern about whether we…inadvertently will find
ourselves in a position of having to provide expressions of opinion to revenue authorities when it’s not really
appropriate. (CT interviewee 1)
The dynamic relationship and interdependence between inter- and intra-organisational knowledge flows can also be found in the interviews conducted with the employees of accounting firms. An important issue mentioned here focuses on detail, and concerns over information overload.
The chances are that clients have seen whatever it is
we’ve seen and we need to be able to have a
conversation with the clients about the implication[s].
And there are varying degrees, in terms of being able to get knowledge out to our people, so they should always
be aware of what’s out in the public domain...They need to know enough to then have a sensible conversation.
They might not need to know the detail or the answers,
they just need to be aware of maybe some of the
implications. And then within a very short space of time, we actually need to have taken it to the next stage and …
be looking at the interpretation and the full implications, what some of the solutions and answers might be to that [question]. And it’s trying to get…different levels of
knowledge out at the right time. And as a technical group, we’ve got some of the best technical brains...within the
group and we can be very, very detailed. So one of our
challenges is frequently, almost like ‘do they really need the Rolls Royce or would the pushbike do at the
moment?’. (AF interviewee 1)
The interviewees indicated that a common method of acquiring and using knowledge is the precedence-based system, which typically relies on voluntary submissions.
Very typically for our tax users, it’s precedence-based
information; what have we done? What advice has been given to other clients? That kind of stuff. Our tax practice relies heavily on end-user submissions. So people in the tax practice submit content they’ve generated through
the course of their work. That content is then processed and it’s filtered, it’s sanitised, by which we mean client
names are stripped out.…[O]ur tax practitioners can go
and search over all of the internal [company name]
generated content. But if, for example, they want to
access legislation at the moment, they need to go out, go and access say, for example, the LexisNexis Butterworth site over the [company name] firewall. So effectively, if
you’re looking for [company name] precedence, and
legislation, you’ve got to…run two searches. (AF
interviewee 2)
14
In the above setting the company is acting in all three capacities, as (internal) knowledge buyer, seller and broker. The effectiveness of a precedence system is dependent on the volume and quality of the submissions, the generation of which can conflict with more immediate demands.
People are all being measured nowadays in this
environment, they’re all being measured on utilisation,
charge-out rates and that kind of stuff.…creating
knowledge submissions; they can’t charge that to
anything, so it really has to be done…almost out of the
goodness of their hearts. (AF interviewee 2)
One firm reports rewarding staff with shopping vouchers in return for making submissions.
The Role of Knowledge BRoKeRs
In line with the literature review, the interviews indicate that the intermediate role of accounting firms is acknowledged by all players in the knowledge market. Both HMRC as knowledge seller and corporate taxpayers as knowledge buyers perceive accounting firms as knowledge brokers. Accounting firms seem vigorously to promote and defend this position.
HMRC are trying to be very close to the taxpayer and
almost be seen as business advisers, and we clearly want to stand in the middle of that. So we don’t necessarily
want HMRC to be going straight to corporates because
we believe our role is to facilitate that [relationship]…We have a lot more experience…as to how we can make that work effectively. Whereas sometimes the corporates can be quite naive and see HMRC as their friend, where
actually they’re never going to be that. And they can’t be because they’re a governmental institution and…they’ve got their rules to abide by. (AF interviewee 1)
It’s a kind of…balancing act of them [the accounting
firms] sharing knowledge between the clients, [while]
obviously not giving away all of our…trade secrets. (AF
interviewee 2)
HMRC interviewees seem to have a relatively positive attitude towards the mediating role of accounting firms in communicating with corporate taxpayers.
If we’re doing an enquiry and we find the agent’s [ie the accounting firm] got [hold of] the wrong end of the stick, if you can educate the agent and get them to do things right in the future, that has a huge effect compared with just educating one company. (HMRC interviewee 2) Corporate taxpayer interviewees also mentioned the benefits of having accounting firms as intermediaries in knowledge flows from and to HMRC.
HMRC tell it as it is, the accounting firms analyse it and explain the implications for you, which is quite helpful.
(CT interviewee 3)
Another way we might feed things back is via the
accounting firms, so they might write to us and say ‘Do
you have any views that you’d like us to put in our
representations [to HMRC]?’ And we find that quite a
convenient way to do things. (CT interviewee 3) Nevertheless, the interviews do show that both knowledge sellers and buyers also have reservations about the role of knowledge brokers, and a particular criticism is the commercialisation of knowledge by accounting firms. For instance, HMRC interviewees expressed concern about the possibility of accounting firms having a different interpretation of tax legislation. And corporate taxpayers appear to experience doubts about the reliability of the accounting firms, especially when accounting firms shift their focus from performing as a knowledge broker to acting as a knowledge buyer; this point is clearly formulated in the next quote.
They [the accounting firms] come and review our files,
have a chat to see what we are doing…often I say to
myself, they probably learn more from us than we learn
from them, when they come to our organisation, sit down and discuss and see what we do. And I’m sure there are things which they can then go and sell to other
companies. I’m sure it happens. Many things which we
agree with the local VAT office, certain VAT treatments,
certain VAT recovery, certain practices, which are not
within the legislation, they may be as a discretionary
treatment. And yes, I think the professional folks do come in and see how we are doing things, and I’m sure they
take that away and see that as an opportunity to go [into] other firms and do a similar exercise. (CT interviewee 8) We had one of the Big Five in to do us a PAYE and NIC
review, just to make sure everything was working alright.
And the next you know you get a 20-page report, a sort of scathing report saying ‘this is potentially wrong, this is
potentially wrong, this could be troublesome, this could cost us a lot of money’. And once such a report is written, the hands of the management are tied; they have then
got to act on it. (CT interviewee 8)
The accounting firms and law firms are extremely
sensitive to the commercial value of knowledge and
information. To put it very cynically, they need to appear to be the fountain of all knowledge and wisdom, while
actually imparting as little as possible, so they preserve it for selling to you on a future occasion. (CT interviewee 1) Aside from quality and reliance issues, the choice of supplier can be influenced by the corporate taxpayer’s ability to retain or capture the knowledge created. There are potential limitations to an organisation’s ability to retain knowledge generated both internally and externally.
[P]eople sometimes say there’s a benefit in undertaking research in-house because you retain the knowledge; but
I question that,…given [a] realistic turnover and
movement of people within a tax department, you
probably don’t really preserve it in perpetuity anyway. (CT interviewee 1)
15
THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX KNOWLEDGE 4. INTERVIEW RESULTS
I think the client is always wondering whether they’ve
actually captured the knowledge, which has been so
expensively purchased.…[A]ny time we are planning a
complex transaction and there’s something with which we even feel familiar, we still feel compelled to go out and
take expert advice in all the specialist areas applicable to the transaction, which may well be going over old ground;
and even if we think we understand the issues, we still
have to do that to confirm that we’ve not forgotten
anything that’s happened in the law in the meantime. (CT interviewee 1)
Despite the considerations above, the interviewees say that they do regularly rely on accounting firms. Most corporate taxpayers hire accounting firms for specific tasks. They believe that in those situations, the advantages of hiring accounting firms outweigh the (potential) disadvantages. In this respect, strong relationships are considered to be very important.
If we feel we can’t rely solely on our own efforts, then
we’ll go to a professional firm, which for most issues
probably will be a Big Four accounting firm, and ask for
their formal advice. If it’s a very specific legal issue, we
might go to a law firm. (CT interviewee 1)
You want some external assurance that the decision
you’ve come to is the right one…in the sense that you
want someone else to have come to the same conclusion as you, so that you don’t get sacked for it later. (CT
interviewee 3)
We use them but we’re not fully reliant on them. We listen to them, take their advice and then implement it. We
don’t say to tax advisers, ‘come in and do the whole lot’.
But we just listen to what they’ve got to say, but a lot of
the stuff we do ourselves. (CT interviewee 7).
It does make us want to have known and trusted advisers, and relationship-building with advisers is very important.
And I think those relationships can be damaged if
information is exchanged inappropriately. But I find the
Big Four, the big law firms, extremely professional in that context. (CT interviewee 1)
The interviews that were conducted with employees from accounting firms indicate that accounting firms are aware of the views of the other players in the knowledge market on their precarious role as knowledge broker. Consequently, they are eager to enhance their perceived reliability among, and maintain strong relationships with, HMRC and corporate taxpayers.
We really don’t use information from one client with
another, it’s too risky. And you know, we’d need
permission and, on the whole, we don’t want to go to
clients and ask their permission for that sort of thing, so we just don’t do it. We change teams, so that we don’t
have people working on competitor claims either. So it’s not that you might have one person with that knowledge going from one claim to the next, we tend to split our
teams in such a way that, within a sector, we don’t have people working on direct competitors’ claims. (AF
interviewee 3)
The firm as a whole is very, very clear on its terms of
disclosure and filing positions; and you know,…not only do we wish to be whiter than white, we wish to be seen to be whiter than white. (AF interviewee 1)
An alternative response to similar concerns is deliberately to withhold the acquired knowledge from any knowledge storage system.
There’s something about confidentiality, and there are
various areas of the business where there are some
enormous barriers to sharing knowledge because of
confidentiality. Particularly in a deal-based environment, and also because of the size of firm that we are, we
regularly deal with a number of big players in the same sorts of industries. So again, there may be areas…I’m
thinking of one incident in particular I know which was a few years ago, where someone had come up with a very creative piece of planning, which was worth quite a lot to them. But actually we also operated for their main
competitor, and therefore it was stipulated they didn’t
want any of this going onto any sort of central databases because their main competitor would see it, and they no longer would be sort of stealing a march on it effectively.
(AF interviewee 1)
conclusion
Our interview findings confirm Davenport and Prusak’s (2000) original definition of knowledge markets. According to these authors, knowledge markets consist of individual players at an organisational level. The interview findings show that knowledge sellers, brokers and buyers can be defined within the organisations that participated in our study. Our study also shows, however, that inter-organisational knowledge markets can be defined. HMRC can be identified as a knowledge seller, accounting firms as knowledge brokers, and corporate taxpayers as knowledge buyers.4
4. It is noted that in April 2008, HMRC announced the extension of its (non-statutory) Clearances Service to business customers. This may help to resolve issues of open disclosure and finality that corporates seek.
16
inTRoducTion
This chapter reports the results of two surveys; one of tax advisers and the second of corporate taxpayers. Prior to being hosted on an independent website, the two surveys were piloted among a group of academic tax researchers who, in addition to their current involvement in tax-based research, had varying degrees of practical tax experience. Minor modifications were made to the surveys following this process.
An invitation to participate, along with details of the research project, was contained in ACCA’s electronic journal Accounting and Business. This was followed up by sector-targeted emails sent by ACCA to sections of its membership, one for members in practice and the other for those employed in the corporate business sector. In total 445 responses were received, split almost equally between the two groups: 223 corporate taxpayers and 222 advisers. The discussion below will start with the corporate taxpayers’ survey.
The results from the mail surveys directly feed into the study’s policy implications, and these are outlined under the relevant sub-heading in this chapter as well as being listed in full in the next chapter.
In the following discussion of the results, references to a particular survey question are indicated, eg ‘(b)’ refers to question b in the relevant table. The percentages in the discussion text indicate the extent of (dis)agreement; eg (45%) refers to the combined percentage ‘(dis)agreeing’ or ‘strongly (dis)agreeing’ with a particular statement.
The mean response score for each question is given in the tables. For the purposes of identifying significant differences, a nonparametric approach is employed using either the Mann-Whitney-U or Chi squared tests, as appropriate. Differences in responses between sub-categories of respondents are reported only when they are statistically significant at the 5% level. In such circumstances the reported percentage is based on the sample size of the appropriate sub sample, for example in stating “Meetings with HMRC at national or regional level (b) were more important for companies with internal tax specialists (48.8%)”, the 48.8% is based on the number of responses from companies with internal tax specialists. coRPoRATe TAxPAyeR suRvey: BAcKgRound of ResPondenTs
To provide a context for the subsequent discussions it is important to consider the characteristics of the corporate taxpayers (see Table 5.1). The respondents compromise a wide range of sizes of corporate taxpayer when measured by numbers of employees. The table shows that all four of the European Union standard size categories are represented, although the number of ‘micro’ firms is small. In the subsequent analysis, this category has been combined with the ‘small’ category to give 60 small-firm observations. There is also wide variation in the number of tax jurisdictions with which respondents interact. The median value of 3 is a better indication of the sample characteristic than the mean value of 8, because of the presence of one untypical company that operates in more than 150 jurisdictions.
The individual respondents held at least one Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) recognised accounting qualification. The one exception is a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT), a further six respondents were also members of CIOT and five held the Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT) qualification.
5. Mail survey results
Table 5.1: corporate tax respondents by working setting
interacting with8.753>1501207
17 THE MANAGEMENT OF TAX KNOWLEDGE 5. MAIL SURVEY RESULTS
sTRucTuRes of TAx Knowledge MAnAgeMenT
The survey considered three main forms of structuring the management of tax knowledge: the use of internal tax specialists; internal accounting specialists; or external tax specialists (see Table 5.2). In the subsequent discussion these three approaches are respectively referred to as
‘internal tax specialists’, ‘internal accounting specialists’ and ‘external tax specialists’. A fourth category ‘other’ was provided for in the survey, and the responses show that it consists mainly of companies that combined both internal and external specialists. Collectively these four forms are referred to as ‘structures’.
Table 5.2 indicates a relationship between company size and the structure of tax knowledge provision. Compared with SMEs, large firms are more likely to have an internal tax specialist and correspondingly use external tax specialists less frequently. Surprisingly, there is no relationship between type of tax structure and either complexity, ie number of tax jurisdictions, or demand for tax knowledge.need foR TAx Knowledge
Just over two-thirds (67.6%) of companies had a high need for tax knowledge. No relationship exists between the need for tax knowledge and either company size or tax complexity.
Table 5.2: structure of tax knowledge provision and company size
Provision Company size
Small Medium Large Total Internal tax specialists7 (14.1) 4 (9.9)33 (20)44 Accounting and finance staff22 (21.8)16 (15.3)30 (30.9)68 Tax responsibilities are outsourced to external advisers31 (27.6)25 (19.3)30 (39.1)86 Other10 (6.4) 4 (4.5) 6 (9)20
704999218 The bracketed figures represent the expected number in the absence of a statistical relationship between Provision and Company size.
18
use of TAx Knowledge
The degree of interaction between taxation and operational decision making within a company provides an indication of the importance of tax knowledge to a company. A lack of interaction can give an indication of areas where the use of tax knowledge could lead to improvements in decision making. Three operational areas were considered: human resource; production; and research and development.
The results in Table 5.3 are surprising when considered in the context of classical economic theory, and specifically with respect to the Scholes-Wolfson tax decision-making paradigm of considering all parties, all taxes, and all costs (Scholes et al. 2008). In fewer than half of the companies (46.8%) are operational decision makers required to consider the tax effects of the decisions they make (a); though when internal tax specialists are present the percentage (60.5%) is higher than for both the other categories, internal accounting specialist (50%) and external tax specialists (36.5%). Other responses are similarly disappointing in terms of tax awareness within operational functions. For example, in only a third of cases (33.4%) are operational decision-makers considered to be proactive in seeking advice from internal sources of specialism (c), and less so (22.1%) when external tax specialists are used (d).
These low figures are consistent with low levels of tax-related knowledge and skills; 64.7% of companies disagree that operational decision-makers ‘have the necessary skills and knowledge to consider taxation effects appropriately’ (e). Overall, however, a small majority (58.2%) consider that their company gives an appropriate level of attention to tax matters (f), even though only 23.5% evaluate operational decision makers on a basis that reflects taxation (b).
Table 5.3: operational decision makers
Listed below are statements with regard to decision makers in operating functions within your organisation, eg Research and Development, Human Resources and Production. Please indicate for each of these statements to what extent you agree.
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
agree
Mean
score
(a) Operational decision makers are required to
consider the tax effects of their decisions13 (6.1%)57 (26.5%)44 (20.6%)87 (40.7%)13 (6.1%) 3.14 (b) Operational decision makers are evaluated on
a basis that takes into account taxation22 (10.3%)86 (40.4%)55 (25.8%)45 (21.1%) 5 (2.4%) 2.65 (c) Operational decision makers are proactive in
seeking tax advice from internal sources18 (8.4%)66 (31.0%)58 (27.2%)64 (30.1%)7 (3.3%) 2.89 (d) Operational decision makers are proactive in
seeking tax advice from external sources32 (15.0%)85 (39.9%)49 (23.0%)42 (19.7%) 5 (2.4%) 2.54 (e) Operational decision makers have the
necessary knowledge/skills to consider taxation
effects appropriately40 (19.0%)96 (45.7%)39 (18.6%)33 (15.7%) 2 (1.0%) 2.34 (f) Overall my organisation gives an appropriate
level of attention to taxation matters 6 (2.8%)32 (15.0%)51 (23.9%)105 (49.3%)19 (8.9%) 3.46 (g) Operational decision makers provide tax
specialists with necessary tax related information
on a timely basis13 (6.1%)64 (30.2%)79 (37.3%)49 (23.1%)7 (3.3%) 2.87 (h) Operational decision makers provide the tax
function with necessary tax related information
in an appropriate form, eg level of detail11 (5.2%)57 (27.1%)82 (39.1%)53 (25.3%)7 (3.3%) 2.94
中外合作办学项目 自评报告 济南大学与英国 格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学合作举办项目名称：机械工程及自动化专业本科教育项目 办学单位：济南大学 教育部学位与研究生教育发展中心制表 2016年3月27日填
济南大学具有60多年的办学历史，是山东省重点建设的应用型名校。项目依托单位机械工程学院是学校的主要二级学院之一，拥有机械工程及自动化、机械设计制造及其自动化、工业工程、工业设计和车辆工程五个本科专业以及一个机械工程一级学科硕士点。项目所在专业机械工程及自动化是学院的主干专业，2010年被评为国家级特色专业，拥有山东省教学名师、山东省优秀教学团队、山东省精品课程群、山东省人才培养模式实验区等荣誉和成果。 英国格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学的历史可以回溯到1875年，是苏格兰最大的大学之一。英国格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学拥有全英最先进的实验室设备，并提供建筑与测量、计算机、数学、化学、能源、工程和环境学方面的专门技术。学校在机械工程及自动化、计算机、建筑、金融学、卫生保健、福利与社会等学科领域的研究和咨询能力享誉全国乃至国际。英国格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学积极促进国际交流与合作，在校生中包括来自90个国家的1500名国际学生。 济南大学与英国格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学合作举办机械工程及自动化专业本科教育项目由济南大学机械工程学院和英国格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学工程与建筑环境学院联合承办，2011年获得教育部批准（批准书编号MOE37GB2A20111127N）。项目纳入国家普通高等学校招生计划，已招生三届。 项目采取“4+0”或“3+1”培养模式，由济南大学每年在山东省“二本”批次按机械工程及自动化专业招生，培养计划由济南大学与英国格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学协商制定，互认学分。项目学生一、二、三年级在济南大学学习公共基础课程和专业基础课程，四年级获得赴英学习签证并在格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学学习自选的机械工程专业课程。济南大学对完成全部培养计划的项目学生颁发毕业文凭并授予学士学位，这些学生也可向英国格拉斯哥加利多尼亚大学申请学士学位证书。 1.培养目标和培养方案 1.1培养目标 济南大学已成为山东省应用型人才培养特色名校建设单位，办学定位、发展规划必须符合区域或行业发展需要。机械工程及自动化专业作为支撑济南大学名校建设工程的十个重点专业之一，其培养任务就是为企业职业岗位群或技术领域培养人才，旨在培养能将科研成果转化为产品或其他物质形态的应用型工程师和精于管理的企业型工程师，能在生产一线独挡一面的工艺工程师和现场工程师，从而顺应了当前经济社会发展和世界大学工科教育的潮流。因此，项目确立了应用型、国际化的人才培养目标。 1.2培养方案 本项目的培养方案、学制年限的制定和执行符合国家的有关规定。以能力需求为主线，优化专业课程体系，加强外语教学和综合能力培养。以专业基础课和专业核心课为突破口，压缩课程门数，减少总学时和课堂授课学时，增加实践、自学时间。多途径、多形式引进包括教学理念、师资、教材、访学交流等在内的国外教学资源，共同开设和引进工程力学、企业管理与价值工程、流体力学与热力学、机械工程项目管理等34门课程，推行案例教学、双语教学、小班化教学等，改革学习评价和考核模式，鼓励学生个性化发展。有利于学生学习能力、实践能力、国际化视野和创新精神的培养，有利于人文素质和科学素质的提高，有利于个性特长发展。培养方案融合国内与国外两种教育环境，体现了优质教育资
Aaa 美国会计学会 (1) ABC 作业基础成本计算 (2)absorbed overhead 已吸收制造费用 (3)absorption costing 吸收成本计算 (4)account 帐户,报表 (5)accounting postulate 会计假设 (6)accounting series release 会计公告文件 (7)accounting valuation 会计计价 (8)account sale 承销清单 (9)accountability concept 经营责任概念 (10)accountancy 会计职业 (11)accountant 会计师 (12)accounting 会计 (13)agency cost 代理成本 (14)accounting bases 会计基础 (15)accounting manual 会计手册 (16)accounting period 会计期间 (17)accounting policies 会计方针 (18)accounting rate of return 会计报酬率 (19)accounting reference date 会计参照日 (20)accounting reference period 会计参照期间 (21)accrual concept 应计概念 (22)accrual expenses 应计费用 (23)acid test ration 速动比率(酸性测试比率) (24)acquisition 购置 (25)acquisition accounting 收购会计 (26)activity based accounting 作业基础成本计算 (27)adjusting events 调整事项 (28)administrative expenses 行政管理费 (29)advice note 发货通知 (30)amortization 摊销 (31)analytical review 分析性检查 (32)annual equivalent cost 年度等量成本法 (33)annual report and accounts 年度报告和报表 (34)appraisal cost 检验成本 (35)appropriation account 盈余分配帐户 (36)articles of association 公司章程细则 (37)assets 资产 (38)assets cover 资产保障 (39)asset value per share 每股资产价值 (40)associated company 联营公司 (41)attainable standard 可达标准
中外合作办学项目学生问卷调查 各位同学： 大家好！很高兴你们抽出时间参加这次调查活动。这次问卷调查将用于关于中外合作办学的量化研究。 这次问卷调查完全匿名。仅供学术研究使用。希望大家完整填写问卷。 专业：年级：性别： 独生子女：是否家庭所在地：城市城镇农村 1.您就读的原因是（）： A可以接受境外优质教育 B为了出国 C能拿国外文凭或双文凭 D遵照父母意愿 E分数的原因，不得已选择 F其他（请注明）： 2.您所就读的专业对社会的适应性为（）： A非常强B较强C一般D差E很差 3. .您所就读专业的人才培养目标（）： A非常合理B合理C比较合理D不合理E很不合理 4.是否有出国经历？如果有出国经历，出国多长时间？ ____________________________________________________________ 5. 大概估算家庭一共年薪有多少（） A 少于6万元 B 6 - 12万元 C 12 - 30万元 D 30 - 60万元 E 60 - 200万元 6.以下原因对你选择接受高等教育有多重要（） A为了以后找到好工作B为了以后服务国家，服务社会C大家都想上大学，我也得上 D 为了提高自身综合能力水平 E 家里人影响 7.以下原因对你选择中外合作办学项目是否重要（） A为了有更强的竞争力B开阔视野和国际接轨C以较经济的方式接受外国教育D 便于以后出国深造 E 该项目入学分数要求不太高 9.你期望从中外合作办学项目中达到哪种教育目的（）
A学到以后能用上的专业知识B学到自我独立思考分析的能力 C学到外国先进思想与技术 D 获得出国机会 E 学到科学的研究方法 10.你对外教课是什么印象（） A外教课生动有趣很新鲜 B从外教课上学到了很多外国文化知识 C外教引进了外国先进教学方法 D外教引进了外国先进教学内容 E与外教的交流和讨论很融洽 11.你认为自己在以下这些方面的进步如何（） A专业知识 B沟通能力 C创新能力 D熟练运用外语 E分析解决问题能力 F对外国文化的了解 12.学习过程中以下几项对你有多重要（） A学习成绩好 B学习中乐趣很高 C学习中有新观点新发现 13.你是否可以接受以下情况（） A你和外国人结婚 B你长年在外国工作 C你加入外国籍 14.在生活中，以下价值对你的重要性（） A倾听长辈的意见 B守纪律 C谦虚 D尊重上级 E与人和睦相处 F有主见 G有创新精神 H批判精神 15.你如何评价你和老师之间的距离感（） A总是很大的距离感，老师高高在上。 B大部分情况下，有很大的距离感。 C 距离感比较小，可以和老师进行一些沟通。 D没有距离感，与老师基本平等，沟通无阻。 16.（可多选）您对教师队伍的评价是（） A中外教师比例合适B队伍稳定性高C教师年龄结构合理D教师学历结构合理E教师师德师风良好F双语型教师充足G其他（请注明）： 17.（可多选）您认为外方教师教学过程中存在哪方面的问题（） A教学理念不正确B教学态度不端正C教学内容零散且无意义 D教学方法和手段不科学E教学经验不丰富F教学效果不好G其他（请注明）：
中公财经培训网：https://www.doczj.com/doc/e210110904.html,/ 毕马威作为acca会员们的主要就职意向企业，它的消息自然不能错过。西安地区将成为近期acca会员们关注的焦点了。不知道有没有西安的小伙伴，似乎可以近水楼台先得月了。下面是中公财经小编整理的相关新闻介绍; 2月9日下午，毕马威会计师事务所西安分所入驻高新区签约仪式举行。高新区党工委副书记王斌会见毕马威中国副主席邹俊一行并出席签约仪式，高新区管委会副主任祝鹏翘参加会见与签约。 王斌对邹俊一行的到来表示欢迎。他介绍说，西安是我国确定要建设的国家中心城市和亚欧合作交流的国际化大都市，也是国家“一带一路”战略的重要节点及丝绸之路的起点城市。西安高新区作为西北地区科技金融机构最密集的区域之一，正成为各界人才和各方人士青睐的投资区域。毕马威是全球四大会计师事务所之一，此次毕马威会计师事务所西安分所项目的入驻，将进一步推动西安市及陕西省经济高质量发展，也为高新区金融产业持续健康发展注入新的活力。同时，对高新区进一步完善产业链条、加速产业聚集、壮大产业规模，加快推进“5882”战略，打造千亿级金融服务业集群具有重要的促进意义。高新区将秉承“五星级店小二”精神，竭诚提供各种优质服务，全力支持毕马威在高新区快速发展，做大做强，期待双方的合作不断取得更加丰硕的成果。 邹俊表示，西安分所是毕马威在中国的第十八个办公室。作为毕马威在陕西的分支机构，西安分所的设立将进一步拓展毕马威在中国的业务，扩大毕马威对“一带一路”沿线国家的辐射和影响。高新区是西安经济发展的高地，对毕马威未来的发展有很大的提升促进作用。毕马威也将尽自己所能，为西安以及西北地区的经济发展做出一份贡献。 会见后，毕马威会计师事务所西安分所入驻高新区签约仪式举行。王斌与邹俊分别代表高新区、毕马威进行签约。
1、理解重要性概念 优秀的财务分析师能够以不完整的信息和一种感觉-一种经过训练的直觉，-信息何时相关以及何时不相关的感觉来得出结论。在某些情况下信息是可以衡量的，如一笔交易的金额大小或者预算偏差百分比的水平。在其他情况下信息更为无形，如当前一名财务经理vs.CFO的所知的细节的程度。有财务分析师把它解释为成本vs.收益的概念：知道什么时候你已经达到了在一个分析上花更多时间将不会提供足够的收益以继续的程度的概念。 会计人员和计算机编程人员有时在转职为财务分析师时会有一段艰难的时光，因为他们对数字和顺序的关注。一个我在招聘面试时会问的标准问题是"重要性对你意味着什么？"告诉我其意味着尽其所能来斤斤计较的应聘者通常不会得到第二次面试。 2、善于使用电子表格和数据库来分析信息 优秀的财务分析师知道如何应用电子表格和数据库提供的工具来凝聚不相干，数据、解决问题以及向管理层演示信息。全方位的使用这些工具的经验不如知道它们以及何时使用它们的意识重要，尽管一个对数据透视表和查询设计的牢固理解会很有用。 还有，知道将向其报告工作的个人的需要和个人风格是很重要的。某些管理者更喜欢信息以一种视觉形式如图形显示，而另一些喜欢下属为他们把所有的信息列示于明细财务表格中。最终，都是关于把数据转为结论。 在WellPoint我的部门开发了一个"技术技能评估"，每一名分析师都用它来评估他们MicrosoftExcel，MicrosoftAccess和其他工具的能力水平。这些评估帮助我和我的职员一起来识别他们的发展机会，同时也给了我们一个按每种工具的特性来配置专家的参考工具。 3、理解管理会计概念并学以致用 我们都在大学学了许多有价值的概念，但是多数财务分析师没有在工作中完全利用它们。优秀的财务分析师记得这些概念并且能够应用它们。 例如，负责部门预算的分析师长于运用偏差分析和基于作业的成本（ABC）技能。那些资本密集行业的分析师长于应用投资回报和盈亏平衡分析。而那些开发增长战略的分析师会运用边际贡献和增量成本分析。 统计方法通常也未被利用，主要地是因为我们倾向于在完成学位之后就忘记它们。优秀的财务分析师找得到运用统计来定位数据样式的方法。 明显地，发展这些技能的一条康庄大道就是成为一名管理会计师（MAT）。考试准备更新了你的知识并且让你在可能荒废的领域得到实践，而且还能获取表明你的卓越的实际证书。 4、成功穿行于公司的财务系统和非正式人际网络来得到数据和信息 优秀的财务分析师知道其公司的财务系统-总账、销售、存货等等，以及它们所包含的数据的限制，而他们
中外合作办学项目（含校际交流项目）管理办法 （试行） 为进一步推进南京审计学院国际化办学工作的发展进程，加强对外合作与交流，规范中外合作办学项目的管理，实现学院整体发展目标，根据《中华人民共和国中外合作办学条例》、《中华人民共和国中外合作办学条例实施办法》，结合我院实际情况，特制定本管理办法。 第一章总则 第一条本管理办法中所称中外合作办学项目是指我院经批准与外国教育机构以不设立教育机构的方式，在学科、专业、课程等方面合作开展的以中国公民为主要招生对象的教育教学活动。关于中外合作办学机构的管理规定，另行制订。 第二条仅以互认学分与外国教育机构进行学生交流活动，属于校际交流项目，不须向国家教育部报批，只须到当地教育部门备案。其它操作程序和管理监督方法参照本办法执行。 第三条南京审计学院中外合作办学目标：引进国外优质教育资源，借鉴国外先进办学经验，调整优化学院学科、专业结构以及人才培养模式，增加教育的多样性和选择性，促进教育改革，努力培养能够跨文化交流、善于在国际市场上解决问题、创造价值的国际化人才。 第四条中外合作办学项目必须遵守中国法律法规和我院的有关规定，按照“以我为主，为我所用”的原则，促进我院的学科建设和人才培养。 第五条学院鼓励有条件的二级院、系、所（以下简称二级单位）与学术水平和教育教学质量得到普遍认可的外国教育机构开展中外合作办学项目。 第二章设立与审批 第六条中外合作办学项目的办学层次和类别，应当与我院和外国教育机构的办学层次和类别符合，并一般应当在我院已有或相近专业、课程举办。合作举办新的专业或者课程的，学院和相关二级单位应当基本具备举办该专业或课程的师资、设备、设施等条件。 第七条我院可以与相应层次和类别的外国教育机构进行多种形式的合作办学，具体包括共同制定和实施教育教学计划，颁发中国学历、学位证书或者外国学历、学位证书，在国外实施部分教育教学活动。 第八条二级单位与外国教育机构商谈中外合作办学项目达成初步意向后，须向国际合作交流处提交《南京审计学院中外合作办学项目（含校际交流项目）立项申请表》（见附件），包含项目合作方案、对方大学简介、项目可行性论证材料，由国际合作交流处呈主管院领导批准立项。 第九条主管院领导批准立项后，应当由院领导、国际合作交流处、相关二级单位、教务处、学生处等派出相关人员组成项目领导小组，进行正式谈判，并签订洽谈备忘录。备忘录应该包括以下内容：合
对于四大的面试来说，很多acca会员可能都经历过。那么四大的面试官，基本上都会问到哪些问题呢?中公财经小编在这里就给大家详细的介绍一下吧; 普华永道 普华永道很喜欢能力型问题。 1. 说说你不得不纠正某人错误的一个情景。 2. 你认为这个工作包含什么内容? 3. 描述一个情景：你不得不在受到批评后改进某项工作。 4. 你读到过有关普华的什么新闻吗? 5. 描述一个你作为团队成员参与完成某项任务的情景。你在团队中扮演了什么角色?你具体做了什么事? 6. 描述一个你成功管理了某个项目的情景，比如课程作业或组织的某个活动。你克服了什么挑战?谁支持了你?结果如何? 7. 说说你最近读到的一条金融新闻。为什么你觉得它很有意思? 8. 举一个你没能完成某项任务的例子。 9. 举一个你建立起某种关系的例子。 10. 为什么选择来审计组? 11. 举一个你和某个不同风格的人一起工作的例子。这人跟你不同在哪些地方? 12. 举一个你说了不道德的话的例子。 13. 举一个你未能得到充分指导的情景。 14. 为什么来普华? 15. 举一个你克服冲突的例子。 16. 你对ACA考试有什么了解?
17. 举一个你和你圈子以外的人一起工作的例子。 18. 和你共事最大的困难是什么? 19. 举一个你解决了某个复杂问题的例子。 20. 描述一个你必须在短时间内完成多个不同项目的情景。 德勤(Deloitte)面试题 跟普华非常像，德勤也很爱问能力型问题 1. 描述一下在你特别为之感到自豪的一项工作中，你担任的角色。 2. 描述一个你同他人合作实现某个目标的情景。 3. 举一个你和某个难以相处的人打交道的情景。 4. 人们会用哪三个词来形容你? 5. 为什么来德勤? 6. 为什么来审计组? 7. 说说你参与过的一个长期项目。 8. 如果你想做会计，为什么还要去读大学学位? 9. 你有什么优点? 10. 描述你维护朋友、为朋友说话的一个场景。 11. 你会怎样推销自己? 12. 你还申请了其他哪些公司? 13. 描述一个你必须决定正确行动方式的情景。做出这个决定时你的思考过程是怎样的? 14. 你怎样竭力做到最好? 15. 说说你领导一个团队的情形。
朱士昌处长： 在这个文件定稿之前，请你听取机、电、化工和经管4个学院院长的意见，并请财务处长审定与经费管理使用有关的内容。也请你认真审阅。有关意见请各位老师书面提供并返回给我。 叶银忠 2010年11月10日 上海应用技术学院 中外合作办学项目管理办法（试行） 为促进学校教育国际合作交流工作，拓展中外合作办学领域，提升合作办学水平，规范中外合作办学项目管理，更好地发挥国际交流合作对学校事业发展的推进作用，根据《中华人民共和国中外合作办学条例》及《中华人民共和国中外合作办学条例实施办法》等文件精神，特制定本办法。 一、项目联系和申报 1、国际交流处统一负责学校各类中外合作办学项目的申报工作，并提供相关事宜的咨询、建议、审核和报批服务。 2、二级学院作为合作办学项目的实施主体，应积极开展与国外大学的联系，寻求合作机遇，洽谈合作意向，形成框架方案，并向国际交流处提交书面申请报告，由国际交流处报分管校长审阅。 3、分管校长审阅同意后，由国际交流处会同有关二级学院及相关职能部门，与国外合作方谈判商议合作办学的具体内容、条件和相关事项，拟定合作办学协议文本，并提供下列申报材料： （1）可行性论证报告 （2）合作办学方案（教学计划、课程设置、师资配备等） （3）合作办学申请书 （4）合作双方签署的合作意向书或合作协议 （5）中外合作方的身份证明 （6）中外合作方经公证或认证的资信证明 （7）外方授予文凭或有关证书的样本 （8）其它所要求提供的材料 其中第（1）、（2）项由二级学院负责，其它各项由国际交流处负责。国际交流处负责审核所有书面材料，提出综合意见后报分管校长和校长办公会议审议。
ACCA准会员与ACCA会员是存在很大区别的;可能很多小伙伴存在这样的误区，以为考到ACCA证书就可以进入四大了。其实，考到acca证书成为ACCA准会员与ACCA会员还存在一定的距离。这个距离可能需要你的工作经验进行弥补。下面中公财经小编就给大家简单介绍这两者的区别以及ACCA会员的申请流程吧; 只有ACCA会员才能在名字后面使用ACCA头衔，表明他们有能力达到ACCA最严格的标准，不仅能够通过考试，而且能够学以致用。雇主也将会明白财会专业人士不断了解影响他们日常工作的法律法规的最新变化的重要性，并且希望雇佣那些有能力妥善处理这些问题的员工。聘用ACCA会员的客户可以信心十足，因为作为会员，他们都会遵守严格的职业要求，遵从公共和独立的纪律制度。诚然，成功通过考试是会计师职业生涯中的重要一步，但这仅仅是伴随着ACCA赋予的资格、责任和机遇而成长为一名专业会计师的第一步。 ①成为会员的必要条件：根据2007年1月1日开始实行的新大纲，成为ACCA会员的必要条件是要完成“三个E”(Exams,Ethics and practical Experience)，具体包括：(1)通过ACCA专业资格大纲14门课程的考试(其中9门根据学员的教育和专业背景可申请不同程度的免试);(2)至少三年的相关工作经验;(3)完成在线职业操守训练课程的学习和测试。对在2007年1月1日之前注册的学员，完成在线职业操守训练课程不作为申请会员的必要条件，但ACCA鼓励学员完成这一课程。 ②准会员如果学员通过了全部考试，但暂时还不具备3年专业实践经验，或者还没有完成在线职业操守训练课程的学习和测试，则可以先成为准会员。 ③ACCA头衔只有ACCA的正式会员才能被允许使用“ACCA”和“特许公认会计师”的头衔。 ④在线职业操守训练课程ACCA开发了在线职业操守训练课程，以检验学员职业操守的价值观和行为。ACCA鼓励学员在报考课程P1(专业会计师)时就开始在网上学习职业操守的课程。学员可以自己灵活掌握学习时间，但是必须在申请会员之前完成课程的学习。 ⑤实践经验要求(PER–practical experience requirements)(1)具备工作经验是成为会员的一个非常重要的条件。在参加ACCA考试之前、考试期间、考试完成之后取得的工作经验ACCA都认可。(2)成为ACCA会员必须具备相关的专业知识和能力，必须在职业道德、公司治理、绩效管理、沟通交流、财务报告、财务管理、审计、税务等方面达到相应的水平。(3)ACCA新大纲制定了20项有实践经验要求的绩效考核指标，要成为会员必须达到13项，其中9项是必须达到的关键要素，剩余4项从11个可选项中选择。 ⑥工作经验记录ACCA设计了学员发展矩阵(Trainee Development Matrix,TDM)以便学员通过回答相关问题，记录自己在工作中达到的绩效考核指标。TDM有在线和书面两种形式。当一项工作成
中外合作办学项目的利与弊 2017年中外合作办学项目的利与弊 中外“合作办学”项目的利与弊 首先，国外院校的排名问题，在选择‘合作办学’这一模式的优势就是相对来讲入学的门槛很低，语言基础差或是在校成绩差的学 生都可以入学，因为需要在国内读1-2年的时间，所以在中文的生 活环境下学习英文，可以有一个很长的适应阶段，如果选择直接留学，可能学习只是一部分，还需要解决生活，吃住行等问题，而在 国内读‘合作办学’的项目可以全身心的放在学习上。 其次，语言提高方面，这一点是很多家长很矛盾的地方，既希望孩子可以迅速的提高自己孩子的语言水平，同时又担心孩子刚到一 个陌生的环境中是否可以适应，如果选择‘合作办学’这条路，语 言环境和直接去国外留学是没有可比性的，毕竟还是在中国来学习 外语，这种学习环境和一些英语学习班的差别不大，现在国内很多 的培训中心都是可以完全做到纯外教教学，可是这样读完1-2年后，很多学生会发现，自己的外语水平提高的并不是很多，而且对国外 以后生活也没有什么帮助，对国外依然还是一无所知，这也是‘合 作办学’的很大的弊端之一。 再者，毕业证的认可程度和师资力量方面，显而易见‘合作办学’的入学门槛确实很低，对于那些望子成龙，渴望自己家的孩子可以 喝一些洋墨水的家长来讲，这也许是一条便捷的路，可是入学的门 槛越低也就说明了学生的生源素质越低，整个的`学习氛围也势必受 到影响;在国内读1-2年的课程，很多教师还是没有相关部门要求的 一些资质，和国外的教师的师资力量确实不在同一个水平线上;近些 年来，国内的用人单位对海归的录用越来越偏于理性，不再是一味 的接受，而且反而会更加认真的去核实，观察学生的综合素质，国 外正规大学的毕业生还是抢手的，因为他们是完全的按照国外的教
P3 Business Analysis 背诵：★★★ 理解：★★ 知道：★ Part A. Strategic position 1.Strategy 根据Johnson, Scholes & Whittington ("JSW"),战略就是公司着眼长期的发展方向和范畴，通过整合内部资源和能力，在变化的环境中获得优势，目标是满足利益相关者的预期。 “The direction and scope of an organisation over the long term, which achieves advantage in a changing environment through its configuration of resources and competences with the aim of fulfilling stakeholder expectations.” （目前的潮流：顾客第一，员工第二，股东第三） ?Long‐term direction：通常考虑了若干年 ?Scope：决定公司到底做什么行当 ?Achieving advantage over competitors获得竞争优势 ?External changes (the environment) 外部变化（行业大环境） ?Resources & competences：挖掘企业自身的资源，做得更好 ?Stakeholders：了解利益相关者的诉求，取得好结果 ?Corporate strategy: 公司整体的overall 目标和范畴，关于如何增加企业不同业 务单元的价值 ?Business‐level strategy: 关于在特定市场如何成功竞争particular markets ?Operational strategy: 关于公司的不同部门parts of an organisation ，如市场部， 财务部，IT部门是怎样支持整体战略的 有序进行 ●The strategy lenses战略棱镜
2017中外合作办学的大学及项目的介绍大全 我国中外合作办学的大学有哪些，具体是什么项目，招生有什么要求?这些问题大家都知道吗?中外合作办学的大学-按照成立时间顺序列举宁波诺丁汉大学宁波诺丁汉大学是经中国教育部批准，由英国诺丁汉大学与浙江万里学院合作创办，在中国设立的第一家引进世界一流大学优质教学资源、具有独立法人资格和独立校区的中外合作大学。请注意，以上信息所包含的真正含义是——中国第一家中外合作大学，拥有独立校区，中方的合作高校是浙江万里学院，外方的合作高校是位列世界百强名校的英国诺丁汉大学。于是，有人便会质疑宁波诺丁汉大学(以下简称宁诺)的中方合作院校的层次过低，而宁诺最吸引考生家长和考生关注的问题也恰恰在此——因为宁诺还是英国诺丁汉大学的中国校区，而万里学院在教学过程中并不起主导作用，否则宁诺2016年在京文理录取分数线就不会均高于北京考生家长和考生非 常青睐的北工大了。正因为其全英文教学、教材从英国诺丁汉大学引进、师资全部由英国诺丁汉大学选聘、采用英国诺丁汉大学教学质量保障体系，才确保了宁诺办学十二年来获得世人瞩目的成就。宁诺80%的本科毕业生成功申请了世界前100强学校继续升学，这其中的20%更是进入了世界10 强的海外名校。这也充分体现了该校的办学宗旨——“一流学
术成就一流国际化人才”。宁诺的主要学制分为2+2和4+0两种，并允许两种学制在学校规定的范围内互转。学校在大一下学期允许部分成绩优秀的学生提出转专业的申请2017中外合作办学的大学及项目的介绍大全2017中外合作办学的大学及项目的介绍大全。宁诺还为4+0学制的和学生提供大三交换学习的机会。宁诺在京招生有明确的英语录取分数线的要求——115分，而对于英语专业的录取分数要求则是英语单科成绩不低于120分;但并不要求北京籍考生提供北 京高考英语口语考试成绩。2016年，宁诺在京按照大类招生。由于宁诺除了颁发宁诺的毕业证，学位证之外，还颁发英国诺丁汉大学的学位证书，所以按照英国学位证书管理的规则，将会注明毕业生的学位等级。这也意味着刚刚经历过残酷高考的北京孩子们，在宁诺的学习生活也注定是紧张而又充满着学业上的竞争2017中外合作办学的大学及项目的介绍大全文章2017中外合作办学的大学及项目的介绍大全出自，转载请保留此链接！。北京师范大学-香港浸会大学联合国际学院由北京师范大学和香港浸会大学(以下简称UIC)于广东省珠海市携手创立，是首家中国内地与香港高等教育界合作创办的大学，获得国家教育部特批。自2005年成立至今，UIC的定位是成为“一所为中国和世界服务的新型博雅大学”。UIC以创建内地首家博雅大学，培育国际精英人才为使命，旨在通过在内地率先推行博雅教育，促进中国高等教育
中外合作办学项目 年 度 报 告 项目名称：_中南财经政法大学与韩国东西大学合作举办视觉传达设计专业本科教育项目 中华人民共和国教育部制 _2018_年 4 月 _3_日
一、办学基本情况 视觉传达设计本科项目始终坚持社会主义办学方向，牢牢把握办学主权。以党建为统领，做好项目的各项工作，以社会主义核心价值观引领全程育人、全方位育人工作。项目采用“3+1”模式，依托中南财经政法大学人文学科优势，引进东西大学数字内容学院教学资源，致力于打造华中地区有影响力的动画艺术人才培养基地，培养具有“中国心”的创新型、应用型、国际化动画艺术专业人才。 在中南财经政法大学党委和行政领导下，项目设中外合作办学联合管理委员会，对合作办学重大事项进行讨论商榷，并在中南财经政法大学内设立中韩新媒体学院为执行机构。学院成立中韩新媒体学院直属党总支，在管理模式上采用院党总支委员对重大问题进行讨论，形成决议、决定，再召开院长办公会，根据党总支委员会的决议、决定，具体进行工作布置和抓落实的模式。 本项目现有学生537人，教职工总人数77人，2017年参与项目教学的老师共计86人。现有教学设备1390件,专业实验室10间,专业图书馆藏书4168册,能够充分满足项目教学与科研需求。 二、人才培养 项目始终遵循通识与专业并行，学问修养与人格修养并举，知识、能力、素质、国际化并重的方针，科学规划人才培养工作，不断优化人才培养方案。2017年，视觉传达设计专业本科教育项目高度重视培养方案的执行力度和执行质量：严格执行国家有关规定，满勤开设国
情课和通识课，塑造政治可靠、素质过硬，具有“中国心”的国际化动画专业人才；从系统工程的视角，对人才培养方案中全部课程进行精细梳理，以教学大纲、教学活动和教学评价三个环节为抓手，不断完善教学设计和课程衔接，确保人才培养方案的有效执行；不断完善实践教学体系，建立奖励机制，稳步提升实验、实践教学环节的执行标准；高度重视对教学管理体系、师资队伍、及教学环境等方面的建设，继续加强对韩方优质教育资源的引进工作。 2017年，项目共引进外方课程16门，优质实践项目2项，国际专业讲座20场。2017年初，中韩新媒体学院产学工作室正式投入使用，使本项目所有学生均有机会在国内接触和掌握国际动画艺术前沿技术和最新发展趋势、参与专业教师的产学项目，有效提升了本项目实践教学的质量和水平。 三、师资建设 为加速两个国际化教师梯队（“双师型”教学梯队和“创新性”科研梯队）的建设，2017年度,项目继续采取“引育并重”的建设思路，进一步落实了教师在职充电机制（派遣青年教师赴韩国留学1人、参加专业培训3人），并加强科研与教研活动的开展力度（开展教学活动30次、参加国内大型学术交流2次、参加国际学术会议2次）。在人才引进方面，严格执行既定的师资评聘制度，引进优秀专业教师3名、翻译教师1名。目前，本项目84%的专业教师拥有海外科研或工作经历，60%的翻译老师具备3种语言技能，师资建设初具成效。
3月28日，ACCA资深会员、ACCA华南区专家指导小组成员兼珈伟新能源股份有限公司高级副总裁梅勤学受邀参加金蝶EAS企业数字化转型高峰论坛深圳首发站，并发表了演讲《数字化变革对财务的影响》，提出了财务领导力才是数字化时代的核心的观点。大数据时代，财务人员应如何应对这场风云变幻，更大地发挥自己的价值？ 本期看点 1、为何财务领导力成为数字化时代的核心？ 2、财务领导者在企业战略规划中有哪些技巧？ 3、技术机遇下CFO有哪六大要务？ 以下内容来自ACCA资深会员梅勤学的精彩分享： 几年前，马云曾在某演讲中说：“人类正在从IT时代走向DT时代”，这句话，想必是给许多企业家都敲响了警钟。IT时代以自我控制、自我管理为主，以商品为中心，不可否认，这在当时的市场环境中依然是主流，而如今随着科技、思想等方面的发展日新月异，IT时代已逐步跨进DT时代，DT时代逐渐成为主旋律。新的时代到来会带来新的机遇，也会带来新的挑战。 数字化时代核心：财务领导力 DT时代对我们到底是挑战还是一个机遇？马云提了一个很神奇的概念：IT到DT的转变，是小我到大我的转变，未来的互联网时代是一个协作开放的格局，我们从原来的一个电脑上个体，到现在云上共享。慢慢做到从小我到大我甚至无我的状态，这是一个社会性的存在。 从传统的信息化时代，一直到在线云化DT化，我把这个稍微做了调整，从原来的算盘到上机，叫做上计算机，有了互联网叫上网。下一步则是现在像华为、金蝶一样，开始上天了。DT时代的实质是数据，数据是一个大的东西，是一个强大的平台，人在其中不是一个人，是以别人为中心的存在，它对我们来讲意味着什么？ 我搜到一个概念，可能比较接近我们理解的大数据。当一个数据大到一定程度的时候，我们很难去发现它背后的模式，发现一些趋势，把它跟最后的东西联系起来，才会成为大数据，最后这个东西称之为“人类的行为”，可以指单个的行为。互联的社会是一个利他互动的年代。从数据当中通过分析，找到模式来跟人和社会关联起来，找到一些东西，这才是我们所认知的大数据。 首先大数据的信息量非常大(Volume)，大到一个硬盘不够用，只能上天找云；其次它一直在动(Velocity)。三是它的花样特别多(Variety)。四是这个能不能为你所用，还是一个谜(Veracity)。这便是大数据的四个特点。总结为一个V——Very难弄。如果想把所谓的大数据转化为给你带来价值的东西，你得把握这四个特点，再来观察价值是如何产生的。 在大数据的管理中，领导力才是核心。所有的数据不管通过什么机器，本质都是人的决策。从大数据到价值有一个相当长的距离，核心的点在于“人”，数字化时代的核心词其实是“财务领导力”。 DT时代：“上下出击左右兼顾” 作为财务领导人，应该如何看待DT时代？我的答案是“上下出击左右兼顾”。数字是CFO的基因。记录过去，反应现在，预测未来。对于CFO来讲，这其实是个充满机遇的时代。 数据记录系统才会产生价值。不管多少复杂的业务，其实都会压缩成为三个循环，最左边是干活的，最右边是做管理的，前线与后台，中间用什么东西连接？数据。 中间离不开神经中枢——信息循环，CFO则是这个神经系统中枢里的中枢。作为玩数字得天独厚的CFO，在数字时代来临的时候，不应该恐惧，而应该开心。当技术革命来临，我们往往恐惧的不是新技术本身，而是变革。所以大家应该从心理上接受变革对CFO来讲其实是好事的事实，克服恐惧。 今天，企业正在快速向以数据和分析技术为驱动力的数字化王国转变，亟需能掌控全局
特许公认会计师ACCA在中国大陆的代表处本文由高顿ACCA整理发布，转载请注明出处 ACCA中国北京代表处联系方式： 地址：北京建国门外大街一号中国国际贸易中心1座3117-3120 邮编：100004 电话：(010) 65269776, 65186122, 65186123 传真：(010) 65269778 咨询电子邮件: accabj@https://www.doczj.com/doc/e210110904.html, ACCA中文网址：https://www.doczj.com/doc/e210110904.html, 工作时间： 星期一至星期五：9:00am——5:00pm 5:00pm ------6:00pm 有人值班, 可以提供咨询及办理事务 星期六下午：2:00pm——5:00pm (3月-12月) ACCA中国上海代表处联系方式： 地址：上海市淮海中路381号中环广场2929室 邮编：200020 电话：(021) 63916777 传真：(021) 63915661 咨询电子邮件：accash@https://www.doczj.com/doc/e210110904.html, ACCA中文网址：https://www.doczj.com/doc/e210110904.html, 工作时间： 星期一至星期五：9:00am——5:30pm 星期六：9:00pm——1:00pm ACCA中国广州代表处联系方式： 地址：广州天河北路183号大都会广场10楼1014-1016室 邮编：510620 电话：(020) 87557932,87557933,87556012 传真：(020) 87557935 咨询电子邮件：accagz@https://www.doczj.com/doc/e210110904.html, ACCA中文网址：https://www.doczj.com/doc/e210110904.html, 工作时间： 星期一至星期五：9:00am——12:30pm 1:30pm——5:30pm
ACCA信息分享会：对话ACCA资深会员 提问：对大部分人来讲，我就是想跳槽，想拿钱多一点，从这种比较直接的方式来讲的话，我想问一下ACCA对各位在选择离开原来的工作环境到新的职业挑战的时候，ACCA会有多大的帮助? What If Innovation财务总监，周颖：你的问题也代表了大部分人的问题，也有人跟我探讨这个问题，我觉得ACCA说白了就是个证书，我也曾经把这个证书比作是一块砖头，你如果拿这块砖头去敲门，你的声音更响而已，但是你没了这块砖头也一样是可以敲门，只是你被听见的概率小一点。关键是你一旦进了这个门，有没有这块砖头已经没有太大必要了，关键是你能做什么，你能够为企业带来的价值是什么，这不是这张证书给到你的。你拿到了证书，给了你很多的自信，在面试的时候，你会觉得我也是顶尖的ACCA会员。大家其实是对ACCA非常认可的，这也是为什么500强公司肯定有这个要求，如果是比较高的职位的招聘的时候，你一旦是通过了ACCA，你承载的不是这张证书，而是你的能力，我更看重的是你的能力。 我在招业务经理的时候，同样的两个候选人，一个是有CPA的证书，还有一个是在考ACCA的，最后我录取的是在考ACCA证书的。用人单位在判断你是不是适合，最关键的是你的个性，让我能不能感觉到你的激情，你是不是真的很渴望有这份工作，如果有一个新的政策出来，他不能够告诉你它的影响是什么，你要有这样一个能力。就比如今年1月1日，上海开始服务行业从营业税改成增值税，其实之前就有这个讨论，在三年前我就知道有这个改变，你在知道这个改变的时候，你应该立即想到应该跟老板做分析，这个改变对你这个企业的业务的影响是在哪里，影响有多大，你的实际的税负有多大的增加，而不仅仅是只是我知道了这个政策。就是你在运用你的能力方面，这个就是你在学ACCA潜移默化给到你的一些帮助。你有一个很好的个性，我相信再难的试也一定能够考得出来。 上海威斯汀大饭店财务总监，凌惠权：你提的问题非常好，我跟你分享一些我所看到过的一些活生生的例子，就是成功的ACCA会员和不成功的ACCA会员。考到ACCA的人，你将来工作上不一定能成功的，这要看你工作方面的能力，跟人相处的能力，你将来工作的话，不是你一个人可以把全部事情办好，你需要你的团队跟你合作，要怎么做这些东西，到时候还要真正去经历，以你的经验慢慢学
ACCA会员有什么用？ 这几年金融行业发展前景大好，考ACCA的人数也是暴涨，很多想考ACCA的人都关心ACCA会员有什么用，下面就来梳理一下。 ACCA课程全面打造复合型人才 财会行业，界定你是否有能力的标准无非是工作经验和你拥有的资质证书，招聘信息上，也明确表示持有ACCA/CPA等证书的学员优先考虑。ACCA不仅从大学期间就可以考，全英文的考试形式也被跨国企业颇为看重，ACCA课程体系全面，是根据现时商务社会对财会人员的实际要求进行开发、设计的，注重培养学员的分析能力和决策、判断能力和企业发展战略上的大局意识，系统、高质量的培训给予学生真才实学，学员学成后能适应各种环境，并使会员成为具有全面管理素质的高级财务管理专家。 ACCA属于国际化、全球性的组织 通过ACCA考试不仅可以拿到牛津布鲁克斯大学的学士学位，还可以拿到英国伦敦大学的会计硕士学位，学员可以根据自身需求在全球350个考点选择适合自己的考试中心，ACCA 的专业资格考试采用全球统一标准，统一教材、统一考试、统一评卷，最后会员取得全球统一的证书，并提供了包括中国在内的40多个国家和地区的法律与税务方面的试卷，让ACCA 与本地实情相结合，更具现实意义。 联合国通过的职业会计师专业教育职业大纲也是以ACCA课程为蓝本，该大纲将作为世界各地职业会计师考试课程设置方面的一个衡量基准。 ACCA强调终身学习职业未来更好 ACCA受到欧盟立法以及很多国家公司法的承认，所以拥有ACCA会员就相当于在世界各地都拥有了一张“通行证”。ACCA知识共享体系以及职业发展讲座等活动，帮助您在职业生涯中不断的把自身财会知识保持在行业领先水平，并且可以拓展同行业的人脉，诸多会员在工商企业财务部门、审计/会计师事务所、金融机构和财政、税务部门从事财务和财务管理工作，很多会员在世界各地大公司担任高级职位（财务经理、财务总监CFO，甚至总裁CEO）。
第一章 1．资产asset 2．负债liability 3．所有者权益 equity=capital=net asset 4．收入income=revenue=sales 5．费用expense 6．厂房plant 7．机器machine 8．无形资产intangible asset 9．非流动资产Non current asset （6 7 8属于9） 10．库存现金petty cash 11．银行存款cash 12．应收账款trade receivable=A/R 13．存货inventory 13 属于14） 15．贷款loan 16．应付账款trade payables=A/P 17．预收账款advance from customers 18．流动负债current liability （15 16 17 属于18） 19．实收资本share capital 20．资本公积share premium 21．留存收益Retained earnings=R/ES 22．资产负债表statement of financial position=SOFP 23 ．所有者权益变动表statement of changes in equity=SOCIE 24．现金流量表statement of cash 第二章 14．流动资产current asset （10 11
flow 25．利润表statement of comprehensive income=SOCI
4．贸易折扣（商业折扣） trade discount 7. 空头支票 dishonored cheque 9. 取走 withdraw 11. 公司业务错误 business error 5．现金折扣 cash discount 6. 不含税 exclusive 7. 含税 inclusive 8. 交易事项 Transaction 8. 未 结 清 的 款 项 ， 别 人 给 我 的 uncleared lodgement 9. 未承兑的汇票 unpresent cheque 10. 别人给我支票 undrawn cheque 复 式 记 账 double-entry 第五章 bookkeeping 2. 借 Debit 3. 贷 Credit 4. 预付账款 prepayment 5. 利润 profit 第四章 1．增值税 value added tax=sales tax 2．进项税额 input tax 1. 现金 petty cash=cash on hand 2. 支票 cheque 3. 自 动 转 账 standing order/direct debt 4. 银行给你存款利息 bank interest on deposit 5. 银 行 收 取 利 息 手 续 费 bank charges 6. 银行收取利息 bank interest on overdraft