|
Click Here for more
articles
|
|
|
|
Taxing
Overseas Firms for SOX
Compliance
|
|
by: Neil
More
|
The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also called the Public Company Accounting Reform
and Investor Protection Act of 2002 was signed into law on July 30,
2002 by President Bush. In the aftermath of Enron, Arthur Andersen,
Global Crossing, and WorldCom, SOX promises greater corporate
accountability and transparency. Named after Senator Paul Sarbanes and
Representative Michael G. Oxley, SOX focuses on the importance of
ethical behavior in corporate governance-across the United States and
now…overseas.
All countries have government-required laws like Sarbanes Oxley. In the
UK, it’s the "Combined Code on Corporate Governance," in The
Netherlands it’s the "Code Tabaksblatt," Germany has a
"Bilanz
Reform" and a "Bilanz Kontroll Gesetz." But then, why do we need SOX
overseas since we already have the required laws? It’s
because
companies with U.S. headquarters must ensure that all foreign outposts
meet federal standards. This is the major cause of concern in the
management and accounting circles. According to some experts, the
Sarbanes Oxley Act might have dictated convoluted rules and regulations
on the U.S. businesses. While the rules are concrete ideologies that
prevent accounting scandals, the constant flux in the policies confuses
businesses around the globe.
SOX compliance by vendors and business partners outside the U.S. is a
frightening task. The risks and complications involved in enforcing the
regulations for multiple firms around the world are enormous. The U.S.
firms should keep themselves abreast of the data operations and data
management followed by overseas vendors. This complicates the case
further as the data should be integrated in financials or entered in
balance sheets. Cumbersome processing of data would step up IT-related
expenses.
The global impact of SOX is tremendous. At the moment, the UK Big Four
firms are feeling SOX repercussions in their consulting sectors.
http://www.big4.com -a website for global Big4 alumni - receives
periodic updates on the latest news and trends at the Big Four firms.
The Big Four in UK reportedly lost GBP250 million in consulting fees
since 2002-a direct outcome of Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Among the Big Four
firms, PricewaterhouseCoopers faced a huge decline in their consulting
fees. Causes for this decline can be attributed to:
·The increased cost of compliance that usurped consulting
budgets.
·Independence restrictions in Sarbanes-Oxley have restrained
companies from utilizing their auditors for many consulting services.
There is an apparent role reversal in consulting fees and audit
services. If consulting fees have declined, audit fees have
considerably increased. A whopping 30% increase in Big Four audit fees
has been observed over a period of two years. This spike does not
compensate for the revenues lost for consulting. Consulting was the
major strength of the Big Four in the UK. But, in the present
conditions, the significant decline in consulting fees clearly
demarcates the performance of the Big Four in the UK.
According to a survey by an European firm, many overseas firms with
their shares listed in the U.S. were not ready to meet the deadlines of
Sarbanes-Oxley. Since European firms already have specific regulations,
SOX compliance is extremely difficult. Some overseas firms have been
attempting to get delisted from the U.S. stock markets since
SOX’s inception. Foreign firms about to get listed on
overseas
exchanges are also resisting to get listed in the U.S. These problems
would take toll on the U.S. market performance and economy. But, the
exit of foreign firms from the U.S. exchanges is not that easy. As per
SEC guidelines, foreign firms holding 300 or more shareholders in the
U.S. cannot delist from the U.S. exchange where they trade.
In the light of these problems, the Securities and Exchange
Commission-in its bid to offer sustained flexibility-started modifying
rules for overseas firms listed in the U.S. The SEC would facilitate
foreign firms to delist their securities that are traded on the U.S.
exchanges. Modifying SEC rules to accommodate European firms would
create a state of unrest among the American managements.
The SOX compliance should be an “all-encompassing”
formula-that which enables governments and managements worldwide to
function efficiently and in rhythm. A level headed approach to weed out
this disconcert would improve the situation.
About the author:
Neil More webmaster@big4.com is an Alumni Member and Staff Writer with
Big4. He writes articles on issues pertaining to the
global Big4 firms - Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG,
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Neil's articles focus on latest news and happenings in Big4 Accounting,
Big4 Management Consulting, Big4 Information
Technology, Big4 Tax and Big4 Legal domains.
Circulated
by Article
Emporium
|
|
