Login
iscover
CPA Australia strongly refutes claims it did not advocate strongly on behalf of members in relation to the new reporting regime for superannuation.
Newsletter
CPA bites after tech giant's roasting
07 December 2017
•
11 minute read
You’re out of free articles for this month
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
As reported earlier this week, BGL’s managing director Ron Lesh said he was “incredibly disappointed” in the advocacy efforts of accounting associations when it came to sorting out the terms of the new event-based reporting regime for superannuation.
Several members have since been in touch with Accountants Daily, saying the lobbying efforts on this issue are reminiscent of the Future of Financial Advice reforms, which saw the wildly unpopular limited licensing regime kick in for accountants last year. Some of these members have voiced their opinion via our sister title, SMSF Adviser. You can view the comments and join the conversation here.
Mr Lesh took particular aim at Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ) and CPA Australia, which CPA Australia has taken issue with.
“CPA Australia consulted widely with members and advocated strongly on our members’ behalf in achieving substantial changes to the reporting framework originally proposed by the ATO,” Stuart Dignam, general manager for policy and corporate affairs at CPA Australia told Accountants Daily.
CPA Australia listed its specific advocacy activities, including a round table between CPA Australia’s Victorian public practice committee and the tax office. It also sought feedback from 15,000 members and consulted with members on its divisional public practice committees.
The association is satisfied with the framework the tax office is proceeding with, which you can read more about here.
==
==
“Our submission to the ATO opposed any reporting timeframe shorter than annually at the time the SMSF’s annual return is due,” Mr Dignam said.
“The final requirements, which moved away from the originally proposed monthly or quarterly-reporting options, are a reasonable compromise considering the circumstances and are informed by substantial input from CPA Australia and our members,” he said.
CA ANZ will not comment on the matter.
You are not authorised to post comments.
Comments will undergo moderation before they get published.