Traduction de «cabinet de vérification comptable » (Français → Anglais) :

33. Stresses the crucial role of large accounting firms, including the ‘Big Four’, in the design and marketing of rulings and tax avoidance schemes that exploit mismatches between national legislations; stresses that those firms, which seem to derive a considerable amount of their revenue from tax services, to dominate most Member States’ auditing markets and to prevail in global tax advising services, constitute a narrow oligopoly; considers that such a situation cannot continue without damaging the functioning of the single market ...[+++] in the fields of activity of the ‘Big Four’; draws attention to the conflict of interest resulting from the juxtaposition, within the same firms, of tax advice and consulting activities intended, on the one hand, for tax administrations and, on the other, for MNCs’ tax planning services, which exploit the weaknesses of national tax laws; takes the view that good practices in this respect must be promoted and that existing codes of conduct should be improved; questions, nevertheless, the effectiveness of corporate codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility policies in tackling this issue; underlines the fact that tax rulings have become, in the EU and worldwide, a common business practice, not only in order to obtain legal certainty or advantageous tax deals, but also in cases where legislative provisions do not allow any room for interpretation; is concerned by estimations from the tax advice industry that a mere 50 % chance of being lawful is sufficient for a tax planning scheme to be recommended to clients ;

29. Takes the view that there should be clear demarcation between the audit services and non-audit services that an audit firm provides to a customer, with a view to avoiding conflicts of interest as referred to in Article 22(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC and in accordance with codes of auditing practice; points out that this could restrict ‘lowballing’, the practice of offering cut-price auditing with a view to then offsetting the lower price by charging for additional services; takes the view, therefore, that the demarcation must apply to all firms and their clients; calls on the Commission, with reference to the 2002 Recommendations on Statutory Auditor Independence, to draw up a list of conditions under which such services would ...[+++]be deemed incompatible with audit services; recognises that the provision of non-audit services, where not incompatible with auditor independence, can play an essential role in broadening the skills base of small and medium-sized audit firms, but takes the view that internal and external audit services should not be provided simultaneously;

29. Takes the view that there should be clear demarcation between the audit services and non-audit services that an audit firm provides to a customer, with a view to avoiding conflicts of interest as referred to in Article 22(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC and in accordance with codes of auditing practice; points out that this could restrict ‘lowballing’, the practice of offering cut-price auditing with a view to then offsetting the lower price by charging for additional services; takes the view, therefore, that the demarcation must apply to all firms and their clients; calls on the Commission, with reference to the 2002 Recommendations on Statutory Auditor Independence, to draw up a list of conditions under which such services would ...[+++]be deemed incompatible with audit services; recognises that the provision of non-audit services, where not incompatible with auditor independence, can play an essential role in broadening the skills base of small and medium-sized audit firms, but takes the view that internal and external audit services should not be provided simultaneously;

There are a lot of audit firms out there that are very capable of doing this work, and it is probably a better idea that the audit function be separate from what the Auditor General does.

Where the Court of Auditors is concerned, the fact that a handful of large Luxembourg-based accounting firms are in a dominant position when it comes to scrutinising the Court’s accounts is worrying, although Parliament appreciates that it is difficult for the Court to avoid this situation.

34. Believes that OLAF must possess adequate human resources to deal with its case-load at least as effectively as an equivalent Member State service. It should also be ensured that certain lacunae in the staffing of UCLAF are remedied, notably through the recruitment of adequate specialist expertise, beyond its core investigative personnel, in the fields of (a) auditing, especially "forensic accountancy", (b) information technology, (c) prosecution and (d) judicial procedures in Member States. All OLAF staff should moreover be selected strictly on the basis of their suitability for OLAF's purposes, which should preclude any "automatic" ...[+++]transfer of UCLAF staff to the new organisation;