Proposition 54K2418

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 22 avril 1999 relative aux professions comptables et fiscales.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 22, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

professional ethics organisation of professions accountant

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB PP VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr Vanden Burre, who refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, within the framework of this project, I might have wanted to question the Minister again regarding the strict legality and to ensure, with the project that is on the table, the quality of the work of the professionals of the figure.

Mr. Minister, extending the quality review to accounting experts is a good thing, I want to emphasize it, but your bill introduces, however, distortions in the fact that auditors and accounting experts who would perform the same tasks would not be subject to the same quality review.

Auditors are subject to the quality review of an independent body, the College of Supervision of Corporate Auditors, while expert accountants are subject to the quality review of their own façade structure of which they are members, i.e. the Institute of Accounting Experts.

I could read in the report the answers you gave in the committee. I would like to hear you again about this problem of risk of distortion between these two professions of digital professionals. I recall that it is important that the King uses the prerogatives given to him with this bill to define the mentions to be compulsory in the letter of mission and to prohibit certain mentions. This should be done in consultation with the Institute of Experts-Accountants but also with organisations representing companies and in particular SMEs. The King could propose a model-type letter of mission.

Mr. Minister, we have learned that the Institute of Accounting Experts unilaterally and without consultation informed the ministers of custody of its decision to end the discussions with the Institute of Business Revisors a few weeks ago, and without returning to the table. Do you think there is a link between this rupture and the bill? I would have wanted to hear you again about this notion of discrimination or not, compared to two professions in the field of numbers.

Here are the clarifications I would have wanted to receive from the Minister on the subject!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to first point out in the preamble that it is primary that economic actors, companies, SMEs and self-employed individuals can benefit from the support of experts, professionals of the figure. Their role is increasingly a role of counseling, analysis, support and strategic accompaniment. I know that the work done by these professional figures is important, of high quality and I take this opportunity to emphasize it.

Furthermore, with regard to the convergence of the three institutes, of the three professions, we have an interest in supporting as much as possible a process of convergence. This process is already a very, very long history, which has almost resulted in different forms at certain times. For example, at the time of Prime Minister Verhofstadt, we were very close to a gathering of institutes, but for a number of reasons this approach failed.

I support the approximation, possibly by step. I think Kris Peeters, co-responsible of some of the institutes with me and only responsible for the revisors, has the same vision as me. We therefore support this process of gradual approximation. The Chinese say it is time that makes the tree. Sometimes you need to give yourself some time to make the tree robust.

You asked me a very precise question. I recognize your tenacity because you had asked the same question from a different perspective in the commission. I would like to be very precise in my answer. Please apologize for giving me some details to serve this accuracy that fits your question.

Clearly, two elements are essential for surveillance.

First of all, let’s note that some control tasks can be exercised by both accounting experts and business auditors! This element is not new. Indeed, since the adaptation of the Code of Companies through the laws of 18 and 20 July 1991 and 29 June 1993, a number of legal control tasks previously belonging to the monopoly of business auditors can be entrusted to an external expert accountant.

These include, for example, the mission relating to the dissolution of limited liability companies, the mission in the context of the transformation of a company or the mission in the event of a merger or division of a company. For this purpose, the Institute of Accounting Experts and Tax Councils and the Institute of Corporate Auditors have developed a common regulatory framework on these elements. Since then, accounting experts are subject to the supervision and disciplinary power of the Institute of Accounting Experts and Tax Advisors for the exercise of these tasks. In other words, the question of supervision has already been settled.

Furthermore, as you have rightly noted, the supervision and disciplinary powers relating to the profession of business auditor have been thoroughly reformed as a result of the European audit reform. In accordance with these European rules, the supervision of corporate auditors, as part of their task as commissioners within entities of public interest, should be entrusted to an independent body. For financial reasons and for the purpose of uniform supervision, it was also decided, at the request of the Institute of Corporate Auditors, to entrust the supervision of all corporate auditors to the College of Supervision of Corporate Auditors. It is therefore not entirely true that the supervision of the performance of the joint control tasks was entrusted to this college, due to their nature.

I wanted to be precise, because the question of this supervision has been the subject of long debates. But regardless of the analysis I just shared, I would like to pay all the necessary attention to the supervision of accounting experts and tax advice. If it is necessary for the examination of a number of dialogues, contacts, reflections and legal analyses, I will make improvements, in conjunction with Kris Peeters. But I think that the bill, which you have not contested, justifies itself.

I apologize for the technical responses, but you would like to be more specific. Here are they!

You know that in the committee, we have adopted the draft. We will not change our opinion. Things need to be put in place, of course, but this realisation encounters some difficulties due to certain aspects. It is important to proceed step by step, as you mentioned. We really wanted to draw your attention to this dimension. As one of my colleagues said to me, you should not always believe the Chinese. It is not because there is a proverb that this is applied.

Please do not hesitate to send me, if you have any, suggestions on this change!