How Managing Tax Risk Impacts Tax Compliance

A recent study by Dr Catriona Lavermicocca, in the Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance at Macquarie University, and Professor Margaret McKerchar from the University of NSW, provides insight into the tax risk decision-makers and the tax risk management practices of large Australian companies.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Benefits of Tax Risk Management

The study is based on in-depth interviews and a survey of tax decision makers from large Australian companies (turnover exceeding $250 million). It finds that companies that identify and manage tax risk improve their compliance behaviour in several ways:

  • Management of tax risks reduces the company’s acceptable level of tax risk;
  • Directors and tax decision-makers, including the CEO, CFO and tax manager, are more informed concerning the tax risk to which the company is exposed; and
  • In a majority of large companies, a tax risk management system identifies both non-compliance with the income tax laws and new opportunities to minimise income tax. It ensures that companies act on the tax issues they identify, and place greater importance on income tax compliance.

Tax Management Systems

Although identifying and managing tax risks does improve the income tax compliance behaviour of large companies, the study finds that the effects of managing tax risk depends on the specific tax risk management system.

Effective systems of managing tax risk improve the flow of information about tax risks within a company. More precisely, the systematic consideration of tax risk throughout a large company assists the company to achieving the tax risk profile it seeks.

Ultimately numerous factors, including pressure from shareholders and other stakeholders, influence the board’s decision about an acceptable tax risk profile. Nonetheless, this research found that a tax risk management system tends to lower the level of tax risk that company decision-makers find acceptable.

Understanding – not eliminating – tax risk

Tax adjustments and amendments still occur despite having a tax risk management system in place. These arise for various reasons, including ATO audits or when companies identify their own errors and make a voluntary correction.

Large companies also indicate that they are increasingly required to obtain the advice of an external tax specialist in an effort to minimise the risks associated with uncertainty and complexity of tax laws, despite the additional cost.

Whilst a tax risk management system cannot identify or control all external risks, the study shows that a documented and operationalised tax risk management system ensures that decision-makers are at least more aware of the tax risks they face.

– Dr Catriona Lavermicocca and Professor Margaret McKerchar

Why governance can’t ignore safety

A recent Four Corner’s report (screened 3/2/2014) on road safety and the heavy vehicle transport industry in Australia revealed the human toll of work-related accidents: 242 people killed in truck-related accidents, and many more injured, in just one year. According to Four Corners, safer work practices might have avoided many of these tragic events.

The Four Corners exposé highlights, in two interrelated ways, the fundamental importance of work health and safety (WHS) to all businesses.

truck_givewayphot1. Effective business governance includes effective governance of WHS.

The new WHS Act (enacted in all States but WA and VIC) requires all officers of a business or undertaking (PCBU) to exercise due diligence so as to ensure the health and safety of workers. The Act explicitly requires all businesses to provide safe systems of work – including safe equipment, safe processes and work methods (such as appropriate rosters, supervision, instruction etc.).

The Four Corners program drew particular attention to the potential health and safety implications of deferred maintenance. This is especially relevant to accountants, given their role in allocating budgets for maintenance programs. Moreover, recent research suggests that accountants are less likely than operational personnel such as engineers to perceive maintenance as even having been ‘deferred’.

2. Health and safety risks requirement management along the entire supply chain.

The Four Corners program also documented how a fatal incident on Sydney’s North Shore in October 2013 prompted an external safety investigation into the Cootes transport fleet. Impacting along the supply chain, this incident resulted in retail fuel shortages along the east coast while road safety checks were carried out on hundreds of Cootes vehicles. For example:

Frustrated Melbourne motorists again faced empty bowsers for some types of fuel or complete service station shutdowns today because of disrupted deliveries, with about 25 Caltex, 30 per cent of BP and a number of Shell ­outlets affected. BP spokesman Jamie Jardine said the company would have difficulty maintaining fuel supplies until all of the [Cootes] trucks were back on the road. (Herald Sun, October 10, 2013)

The vehicle checks identified more than 200 defects, many being major defects in safety critical systems such as brakes, steering and suspension. Three months on, the transport company has this week announced the loss of a major contract with Shell to distribute its fuel. The potential for safety issues to pose a risk to the well-being of workers’ and bystanders is clear. These events further demonstrate the potential for poor safety to also impact on the financial performance of both suppliers and purchasers.

Safety and Corporate Responsibility: Systemic Issues

Concerns over the role of payments, subcontracting, incentives and safety are not new. Similar issues raised by the NSW Staysafe Inquiry into Road Safety almost a decade ago, formed the basis of a research note published in the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal in 2007 by IGAP researcher Dr Sharron O’Neill.

The pervasive nature of this problem raises serious questions, explored by Four Corners, about the sustainability of heavy transport business model and the corporate responsibility of business practices. Low wage rates for contractors and drivers coupled with increasing fuel and other transport costs were reported to still be providing incentives for long hours and excessive speed.

Four corners identified two factors motivating these unsafe behaviours.

1. Some drivers reported being directed by transport managers to meet “impossible deadlines”. Importantly, prosecutions and fines for subsequent speeding and log book infringements were falling on the drivers rather than those employers and companies who direct the systems of work. This alludes to a critical disconnect in enforcement processes that appears at odds with the legislated accountability of PCBUs under both the WHS Act (as outlined above) and the chain of responsibility legislation introduced by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. The latter suggests,

All parties in the road transport supply chain can be held responsible for their actions (or inactions) relating to breaches of the road transport, fatigue, speed, mass, dimension and load restraint laws.

If you consign, pack, load or receive goods as part of your business, you could be held legally liable for breaches of road transport laws even though you have no direct role in driving or operating a heavy vehicle.

2. Four Corners reported that unsustainably low wage rates lead drivers to work long hours to make a reasonable income. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, established under the previous federal government in 2012, had proposed to examine pay and conditions and ensure ‘safe rates’ for heavy vehicle drivers. However, the future of ‘safe’ remuneration is already in doubt following a Federal Government review of the Tribunal which is due to be handed down by April 2014.

All in all, heavy vehicle safety is a complex problem with significant accounting and corporate social responsibility implications. We now wait to see the outcome of the government’s inquiry, and the response by the retail and transport industries to the Four Corners report. One would hope appropriate changes can be implemented before more lives are lost.

– Dr S O’Neill and Dr D Tweedie.

Des Pearson on Public Sector Audit

DP PicThe International Governance and Performance (IGAP) Research Centre was pleased to host Mr Des Pearson, who recently retired as Auditor General of Victoria, as the IGAP Executive in Residence sponsored by CPA Australia. Des’s public sector career spanned over 40 years and 5 jurisdictions, with more than 30 years’ experience at senior, chief executive and statutory officer levels. Des has worked in governance, financial and program management, performance evaluation and accountability roles, including more than 21 years as an Auditor General across two jurisdictions.

During his time at IGAP, Des presented two seminars: at an IGAP/ CPA Australia Roundtable on performance reporting; and at Macquarie University’s Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance on public sector reporting. The slides and key points from Des’s presentations are below.

Performance Reporting (at CPA Australia)

  • Public sector audits include financial and non-financial audit: both financial ‘how much’ and performance ‘how well’, are critical.
  • While financial reporting in the public sector is well-developed, performance reporting is still ad-hoc.
  • Public sector audits have unique challenges: a democracy (and therefore adversarial governance); and the rationing of limited (taxpayer funded) resources against excess demand (from the community).
  • Other challenges include: adopting market models within the public sector; co-ordination between the government and other entities; and public sector timelines (3-4 year terms of office).
  • Possible responses to these challenges are: comprehensive performance reporting; sustainability and integrated reporting; and, building on the Productivity Commission’s Report of Government Services.

SLIDES: PERFORMANCE REPORTING CPA

Public Sector Reporting (at Macquarie University)

  • The Federal, NSW and Victorian state public sectors arguably represent Australia’s first, second and third largest businesses. The auditor general needs to provide assurance to Parliament that these sectors are performing and accountable.
  • Public sector clients are diverse, including local governments, water corporations, police, emergency services, financial institutions, and universities.
  • The key focus for all audits is accountability: that is, reporting back to those who have charged you with a responsibility. The funding of the public sector by a forcible extraction of funds via taxes and charges adds an extra layer of accountability as there is an obligation to apply these funds ‘in the public interest ‘.
  • The Australian public sector needs to be made accountable, not only for probity, integrity and performance management, but also for a working democracy. Quality in public service audit, means reliable assurance of efficiency, economy and effectiveness in program delivery.

SLIDES: PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY

Four ideas for improving Integrated Reporting

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) recently completed the consultation period for its draft version of the International Integrated Reporting (<IR>) framework, with <IR> ‘Version 1’ to be released in December. IGAP researchers Dr Dale Tweedie and Prof. Nonna Martinov-Bennie raised four ideas for the IIRC to consider in its revisions.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????1. Clarifying the relationship between <IR> and other reporting systems

The IIRC’s ‘value-creation’ approach to non-financial reporting is very different from the ‘impact-assessment’ approach used by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Users of <IR> would benefit from greater guidance on how <IR> and GRI4 can be complementary in a practical reporting context; for example, by clarifying differences in the materiality determination processes of <IR> and GRI4 and which – if any – takes precedence.

2. Acknowledge and address stakeholder conflicts

The IIRC’s view that the interests of providers of financial capital – the primary audience of <IR> – and other stakeholders will align over the long term overlooks potential conflicts between these groups, and so how conflicts should be reported. An example in Australia is coal seam gas (CSG) exploration, which promises significant financial benefits to mining and energy organisations, but which other stakeholders have claimed is a long-term risk (e.g. to primary production and water supply). Given this perceived conflict, what should be reported by organisations engaged in CSG exploration? Further clarity on the ‘legitimate needs, interest and expectations’ of other stakeholders that an <IR> should acknowledge would help address these kinds of issues.

3. Increase comparability through a stronger ‘core’

As our earlier blog discussed, while a principles-based framework is a useful method of avoiding boiler-plate disclosures, <IR>s need sufficient commonalities to be comparable over time and between organisations. Providing a stronger ‘core’ of reporting requirements and methods, best practice guidance (e.g. on carbon reporting) and definitions of key terms could encourage comparability without sacrificing the principles-based approach.

4. Governance as accountability

The draft <IR> framework asks each organisation to explain how its ‘governance structure support[s] its ability to create value in the short, medium and long term’. While good governance is part of value creation, the key features of governance are accountability, transparency and ethics, which are fundamental to ensuring that the value that organisations create is managed and distributed in appropriate ways. Following the King Reports in South Africa, <IR> could play a greater role in emphasising and communicating the importance of these aspects of governance. 

Telework to ‘Anywhere Working’: The Next Steps

As reported in the Australian Financial Review, a key theme emerging from the recent Digital Productivity in the Workplace of the Future Conference, sponsored by Macquarie University and CSIRO, was that the conversation is moving on from ‘telework’ from a home office to ‘anywhere working’. Increasingly we will see employees working from locations such as a café, a partner’s, supplier’s or customer’s premises, a smart work centre, a co-working centre, from home, a car, an airport lounge or anywhere that is conducive to achieving the outcomes and levels of productivity required to achieve organisational strategic objectives.

On the latest statistics, around six percent of Australian workers have formal anywhere working arrangements. The statistics on informal arrangements for working from anywhere are more difficult to ascertain. This is an important area for research because workers with informal anywhere working arrangements typically have more autonomy to complete ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????their tasks and projects, and so this is where we are more likely to see productivity gains.

Clearly not all organisations see anywhere working as an effective strategy, and prefer their employees to work from an office.  Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, famously (or infamously) banned all work from home arrangements early this year. Ms Mayer argued that innovation and creativity only occurred when people were together. Yahoo are not alone. Google publically stated that their organisation did not condone working from home.

However, several developments may mitigate the limitations of working from home that Yahoo and others have cited. Co-working or collaborative working spaces are providing opportunities for freelancers and entrepreneurs to collaborate and connect. Hub Australia has hubs in Melbourne and Sydney with another to open in Adelaide later in the ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????year.  Fishburners is a co-working space for technology start-ups and has two locations in central Sydney.

Smart work centres (SWCs) provide an alternative for those employees who are unable to work from home for a variety of reasons including social isolation and lack of space. Employers may be more open to employees working from SWCs because these centres can address issues that arise when working from home such as work, health and safety and difficulties in managing remote employees. A sustainable business model will be critical for the success of SWCs, which is another key area for future research.

A second key theme emerging from the conference was the perceived lack of management and leadership for anywhere working employees. Job design should include autonomy so that employees are able to be productive without the constraints of ‘presenteeism’ (being seen in the office). As Dr Blount from Macquarie University discussed on Sky News, management are unclear about how to develop a business case for anywhere working, and are unsure about the skills required to manage workers who are not office-based. While many employers have the HR policies in place for anywhere working, management resistance is an ongoing barrier to an increased uptake of working more flexibly. Alan Dormer – research leader at the CSIRO’s Government and Commercial Services division – has used research from the The Economist to argue that the reluctance of management to devolve responsibility might be preventing significant gains in both worker productivity and well-being.

The Australian Anywhere Working Research Network – which aims to provide a framework for collaborative research on anywhere working – invites any researchers, employers or government representatives interested in this field to join. To become involved, please contact Dr Yvette Blount in the Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance at Macquarie University.

Internal Audit ‘After the Crisis’

In the aftermath of prominent corporate scandals and the global financial crisis, corporate governance has received close attention from regulators and the public. Regulatory responses have focused on increasing governance requirements and disclosures and this has, in turn, driven increased awareness and demand for internal assurance within organisations. Internal audit is integral to corporate governance, and is well placed to provide this assurance. In a recent article, Dominic Soh and Nonna Martinov-Bennie used interviews with audit committee chairs and chief audit executives to investigate internal audit functions in the Australian context, and to consider how their effectiveness might be improved.

 KEY FINDINGS ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

1. The scope of the internal audit function has expanded and refocused in recent years. Internal audit is increasingly involved in risk management rather than traditional “tick and flick” financial audits. There is also greater engagement in operational areas, and increased focus on performing a value-adding role, such as identifying how businesses can increase their efficiency and effectiveness. There is a clear expectation that in addition to its assurance role, this ‘value-added’ emphasis will continue.

2. The changing role of internal audit is largely due to regulatory reforms. Increased sensitivity to directors’ liabilities, particularly of those directors on the audit committee, has meant increased acceptance of the importance and value of the internal audit function as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the organisation. Some audit committee chairs described the assurance and comfort from internal audit as greater, and perhaps more valued, than from external audit.

3. The effectiveness of internal audit depends on its structure, resourcing and organisational status.

  • There was a clear preference for an in-house function (or at least an internal chief audit executive), on the basis that intimate business knowledge contributes to an effective audit function and makes it better equipped to meet the audit committee’s assurance needs.
  • Interviewees highlighted the importance of key competencies (audit, finance, operational, technological, and legal), but especially the capacity of the chief audit executive to ‘command the confidence and respect of the people out in the field so as to be able to gain access and cooperation’.
  • Good relationships with, and support from, the audit committee and senior management were seen as critical to an effective internal audit function. For example, it is imperative that the audit committee supports and protects the status and visibility of the function e.g. by providing a platform for internal auditors to present their findings at audit committee meetings, ensuring the chief audit executive is present in operations meetings, and ensuring that management undertakes appropriate remedial action in response to audit recommendations.

4. Performance metrics have not evolved in line with internal audit’s role. Common measures of effectiveness related to the annual audit work plan and to measures of acceptance and adoption of audit recommendations. Since these measures were similar to prior surveys, it is clear that performance evaluation mechanisms have not evolved alongside the expansion and refocus of the internal audit function.

IMPLICATIONS:

1. Internal audit cannot be evaluated in isolation. The quality and effectiveness of the internal audit function is largely dependent on other parties within the organisation, especially the audit committee and senior managers. Consequently, an ineffective internal audit function might indicate that there are broader issues in the organisation’s corporate governance.

2. Whether internal audit meets stakeholder expectations is unclear. The misalignment between the current and evolving role of internal audit and static performance measures makes it difficult to assess whether internal audit is meeting stakeholders’ expectations. Given that the internal audit function serves different stakeholders (who at times have divergent interests) within the organisation, more diverse metrics are required to measure whether internal audit is meeting the potentially different needs of stakeholders. For example, while audit committee chairs emphasised the value of assurance, chief audit executives emphasised ‘value added’ from the organisation’s perspective.

3. New performance metrics may be required. Given the increasing emphasis on the consulting and value adding role of the internal audit function, alternative metrics such as value tracking by cost savings or value creation may better measure the performance and effectiveness of the function. There is however a potential risk that such metrics would impair internal auditor’s independence and objectivity, with implications for the external auditor’s evaluation and reliance on the internal audit function.

4. The chief audit executive skills need careful assessment. The increasing involvement of internal auditors in consulting and operational areas requires staff with industry knowledge and experience. In addition to strength of character and an inquiring mind, the chief audit executive needs strong communication skills to build bridges with all business areas, and to confidently report to higher organisational levels. Developing these competencies is no mean feat, and would take considerable time. Organisations therefore need to consider how limited tenure or rotation of this role could work, if it is required or even tenable.  These also have implications for what the career path of a chief audit executive would ultimately look like.

See: Dominic Soh’s and Nonna Martinov-Bennie’s article and abstract: