The boring auditor

Introduction
The stereotypical auditor as a fat, prematurely aging, bald, boring and unenterprising man probably says as much about the audit profession as it does about its practitioners. For many forced to use their services, they are just a necessary cost imposed by the law, spending several weeks at great inconvenience to the management and staff, to write a single page report for which they charge a bomb. They are not even worth a good joke, and the most famous but yet barely quotable one is how many auditors it takes to change a light bulb, with the answer being the question: How many did it take last year? It is also true that on most occasions when we consider the auditor, it is to ask the question, but where were the auditors? Where were they in the Enron saga or the spate of frauds that rocked America in the early part of this decade? Where are the auditors when a government squanders billions in corruption, nepotism and mismanagement? It is not entirely unfair to say that the profession is often perceived as concerned more with self-protection and self-preservation and limiting its liability for negligence than in adding value to its clients. This column is really not about the audit profession but only incidental to it, with a view to showing that the profession can be interesting for the practitioners (and hopefully their clients as well).

A week is a long time
After more than thirty-five years, I still find the profession interesting, so much so that I look forward to a visit I make annually to Berbice on audit business to meet not only with the clients of Ram & McRae, but with the business community and ordinary, everyday folks as well. To say that this year was the most interesting would be unfair to those staff of Ram & McRae, who were holed up in a small room while the heavily armed bandits created havoc at the Republic Bank Rose Hall branch a couple of years ago. But this year too had its own interest, even without guns or bandits. I learnt for example that in Guyana we still have cocoa tea and coffee tea and Milo tea. I was greeted by a businessman who made an unsolicited offer for my old-model car with the assurance that payment will be all in cash! I also had to fetch my suitcase up three flights of stairs in what described itself as a business hotel, even though there was no writing desk or telephone in the room in which I stayed. When I complained to the proprietor he lamented that the guard did not come to work that afternoon and that “no one wants to work these days.” Like his Georgetown counterparts he could not recognise that people want to work in a job that offers a remunerative salary, self-respect and dignity. That an economy built on plantation-type businesses is a backward concept, even though it is now being embraced by no less than our Russian-trained President.

As I carried my suitcase up those stairs I reflected whether our under-worked and over-exposed Ministry of Tourism has ever thought that these facilities should be rated so that potential guests can inform themselves in advance of the type of premises and services they can expect for the price they are called upon to pay. Many of these facilities that describe themselves as hotels are no more than guest houses, fit for nothing more than a few hours, and hardly the type of place for the businessperson or to take the family.

Guyana Times and Chronicle
At 10.30 am one working day, I could only find the Guyana Times and the Guyana Chronicle and wondered whether the Kaieteur News and Stabroek News, unblessed with state resources could not have vendors on the Corentyne. I learnt instead that the latter two were already sold out, while the Times and Chronicle were slow sellers, even in the strongholds. The vendor even offered to sell me these two at a discount! Seems that even the ordinary person on the street understands the principles of business better than those who manage and control the state-owned or state-friendly papers, which ignore any ideas of journalistic independence, impartiality and balance.

I experienced first hand as well the difference in the cost of living between what we in Georgetown pay and those in the countryside. I had a full, fairly balanced meal and a beverage for half the price of what one would expect to pay in Georgetown. I was so struck by what appeared to have been a mistake by the person who served me that I challenged the price charged. No, it was not a mistake.

In all of this I was an interested observer, noting some of the differences between rural and urban life. The one incident in which I was just more than an observer was when I went into a shop to buy an item and was given a small piece of square cardboard with the price written on it and told to go pay the amount stated to the cashier. I approached the cashier with money in hand and asked for a bill/receipt. It was just as if an alien or a bandit had entered the store! Some other person who I assume was the proprietor was summoned, and I found myself explaining that I needed the bill so I could claim back my expense from the office, which was not quite true.

One of those generic receipt books was then pulled out from somewhere and I left the store convinced that I had just become complicit in a tax-evasion scam.

The Republic
Berbice of course is not unique for its tax-evasion but it certainly has a reputation. Many years ago one senior politician well known for his creative language, described Berbice as a Republic with its own laws, customs and practices. Seems that nothing has changed. A Georgetown-based client of the firm recently told us customers and potential customers in Berbice were refusing to do business with him if he issued any invoices to them since they did not want to be part of the official records. I confirmed this with a Corriverton businessman who lamented the unfairness of a system in which the honest businesses are driven out by the tax-dodging ones.

The Berbice business person of course feels protected and special. With the knowledge that they are the home of the ruling party, they demand and receive anything they want, whether it is a bridge, a university, the removal of a police officer or a disproportionate share of the national budget. The businessman who hoards millions in his home to evade taxes expects the police to protect him and to respond at a minute’s notice to his call in an emergency. There are some homes in Berbice which would make you forget that you are in Guyana, because of their extravagance and opulence which borders on vulgarity. One wonders how the owners of these properties would account, if in fact they do, for such wealth in their Property and Income Tax Returns.

Berbice is very much part of Guyana and deserves to have services like everyone else. And should the rest of the nation begrudge that part of the country because it seems to be favoured by the ruling party and the government? But is it not right for the rest to expect that the Berbice businessman should be willing or if not, be forced to contribute to the coffers of the state? Some years ago I was told that one of the tax offices in this country did not bring in enough revenue to pay salaries for its own staff, and am aware that some senior owner-managers earned no more than the tax-free threshold. That would no doubt have changed by now, but by how much is anyone’s guess.

TRIP them up
That does not mean that I do not understand that a tax office may not collect all the taxes that arise from the businesses in a particular area or region, with GuySuCo being an obvious case in point. But I still do not understand the failure to make the annual reports of the Guyana Revenue Authority more informative and meaningful. We hear of the marvellous flexibility and capability of the multi-million dollar new computer programme TRIPS now used by the GRA. Could it not produce information by tax offices, regions, sectors, types of taxes, etc?

Part of the problem as well is that the GRA is too Georgetown-centric so that the best of its resources are devoted and dedicated to the better-equipped offices in Georgetown with staff in the regions being far less qualified and capable, comparatively, than their Georgetown counterparts. Corriverton is generally regarded as the smuggling capital of Guyana, but only the Georgetown Customs Officers have been the objects of presidentially-directed investigations.

And I continue to wonder why the GRA continues to issue so-called tax accountants and consultants with tax practice certificates to go out there and aid and abet businesses to evade taxes. In fact these certificates amount to licences to cheat and to rob the revenues of the country at the expense of the working poor and the unemployed, who have to pay PAYE and VAT at a rate that the government knows was wrongly calculated. In fact on the question of VAT I have heard of discussions among businessmen that they are better off with VAT, since only they know how much they collect and can therefore decide how much they share with the government. In practice, it makes them look better to the GRA because they use some of the VAT money they improperly withhold to pay their other tax liability. Let me not hesitate to state that such collusion is not restricted to the “tax consultants” but to the qualified accountants as well, who enjoy statutory exclusivity but many of whom seem not to understand that there should be corresponding professional and ethical integrity.

The President does not have the power to issue instructions to the Audit Office

In this letter I will seek to conflate two issues involving the President and the Auditor General (ag), Mr Deodat Sharma, which taken together convince me that neither of them understands key provisions of the constitution or the Audit Act 2004, hardly a trivial issue. My conclusion is based firstly on a report in the Stabroek News of January 13, 2009 under the caption ‘Customs workers facing forensic audit as bribery probe widens,’ in which Mr Sharma is quoted as saying that the process of a forensic audit into the assets of employees at the Customs and Trade Administration (CTA) needs to be thorough since, “President Bharrat Jagdeo would expect nothing less.” The second is also an article in the same newspaper of January 20, 2009 in which questioned about the commissioning of a report into the related Customs bribery probe, President Jagdeo is reported as saying that this particular report was “a bit different than the routine annual audit,” while Mr. Sharma said it was “unlike regular reports from his Office.”

Regarding the first issue, both the President and Mr Sharma need to be reminded that the constitution makes the Audit Office “not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.” It goes without saying that that includes the President.

The Audit Act 2004 provides for two types of audit – financial and compliance audits and performance and value-for-money audits (under section 24 (1)) while section 24 (2) provides for the scope of work and broad methodology for the two types. Section 25 of the act sets a deadline of September 30 for submission of the Auditor General’s report on the consolidated financial statements and accounts of budget agencies, while section 26 provides that, “During the year, the Auditor General may choose to conduct special audits and at his discretion prepare special reports when such audits are completed.”

Where the Auditor General and the President fall into error with the President saying it was a debating point, is the scope of section 28 which provides as follows: “The Auditor General shall [N.B. not may], in accordance with article 223 of the Constitution, submit his reports to the Speaker of the National Assembly, who shall cause them to be laid before the Assembly.” That section refers to all reports and “whether it goes through the Speaker or Minister of Finance” as the President said, is more than semantics or a procedural issue. It is the result of a constitutional amendment designed to strengthen the independence of the Audit Office so that he reports not to the executive but to the National Assembly. Sadly, neither President Jagdeo nor Mr Sharma seems to appreciate the distinction.

To any reasonable person it must be clear that together the constitution and the Audit Act make the issuing of instructions by the President to the Auditor General to undertake an investigation into the Fidelity fraud allegations, to carry out so-called forensic audits of the assets of the employees of the CTA and the submission of reports by the AG to the President, unconstitutional and unlawful. After the sterling work done by his predecessor, Mr Anand Goolsarran, Mr Sharma is allowing President Jagdeo to bring the Audit Office into disrepute and it only takes a legal action by any officer called upon to submit to Mr Sharma’s “forensic audit” to have the whole process thrown out. In no country but Guyana would the head of the state audit with responsibility to audit often complex transactions in excess of two hundred billion dollars not hold a professional accounting qualification. One of the reasons for such a requirement is that the holder is subject to a professional code of conduct regulating the quality of his work and the integrity and independence he displays.

It is not that Mr Sharma has time on his hands or no work to do. In a review of the ‘Report of the Auditor General on the public accounts for the year 2006’ carried in Sunday Stabroek’s ‘Business Page’ of August 24, 31 and September 7, 2008, I pointed out some glaring weaknesses − errors of omission and commission of a professional nature in the work of his office. Perhaps a few examples drawn from those columns would suffice. The full articles are available on the Stabroek News website or at ChrisRam.net.

1. That the report did not mention the failure by the Privatisation Unit/NICIL to account for hundreds of millions of dollars, a fundamental breach of the constitution that ranks and rankles with the infamous Lotto Funds;

2. $6.513 billion advanced from the Dependants Pension Fund Deposit Fund at December 31, 2006 not being substantiated while the old Consolidated Fund bank account NO 400 had not been reconciled since 1988;

3. The failure by the Audit Office to report on the financial statements of entities in which the Government has a controlling interest;

4. Non-reporting of the hundreds of millions of flood funds which Mr Sharma had promised more than three years ago;

5. No report on concessions granted under the Investment Act, 2004, including the illegal concessions granted to Queens Atlantic Investment Inc, the saga of 2008;

6. No audit report on World Cup Cricket even as another cricket spending spree is planned next year.

The Guyanese public is accustomed to being misled by fancy-sounding but uninformed statements by public officials, some of which confuse even lawyers of the main opposition parties. The statement about forensic audit falls in that category when looked at against the quality of work referred to above and the persistent failure by the Audit Office to carry out its mandate. Mr Sharma it seems prefers to dabble in matters improperly referred to him by the President while neglecting his constitutional and statutory responsibilities such as his report for 2007 on the public accounts, already overdue by several months, and any value-for-money audits.

The Minister of Finance is a former Deputy Auditor General who served under Mr Goolsarran, and the government must therefore be aware of the several professional and personnel limitations of the Audit Office and those who control it. But since the government transacts business involving billions of dollars, often outside the norms of proper accounting, the constitution and the Financial Management and Audit Act, it is unlikely that it would like strong and independent oversight of such spending. So, really it is convenient for the government to have someone like Mr Sharma heading the Audit Office. In addition, the wife of the Senior Minister of Finance is employed as the only professionally qualified accountant in the Audit Office. By definition she is not independent and it is absolutely incompatible for her to be in the Audit Office while her husband is Minister of Finance.

To allow such serious farce in the Audit Office in my view shows contempt for the people of our bleeding country. All the talk of forensic audit is meaningless. On top of all of this, the parliamentary oversight body, the Public Accounts Committee seems completely out of its depth. Do Guyanese really deserve this?

I will deal with the President’s uninformed and misguided call for “MP’s to declare assets within two weeks or face the courts” in later correspondence.