CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘accounting’

It is Time to Clean House – The Client Break-Up

Posted on: May 8th, 2019

By: Nancy Reimer

The end of tax season is an opportune time for certified public accounting firms to review their client roster to ensure existing clients are a good fit with the firm’s mission and culture. CPA’s are taught to exercise due diligence when accepting new clients. For example, a firm will  assess whether it has the required knowledge and skill to perform the work, whether the client’s expectations are reasonable, does its management team exhibit integrity and trustworthiness, had the client changed CPA’s often, is it negotiating down the fee, hesitant to pay a retainer, is the client delinquent in filing or does the client keep its records in poor condition? If satisfied with the answers, a firm will accept the client.

Once clients are in the door, however, should they stay? Is it difficult to get information timely from the client, does the client haggle over fees, fail to pay, act abusive towards staff, fake or inflate numbers to avoid tax payments or penalties, lack proper internal control or consistently fail to follow advice?

What about changes in the firm that may make servicing the client difficult? New technologies may make it difficult for certain clients to keep up, some clients may not be comfortable with online organizers and electronic engagement letters. Perhaps there is a staff-turnover losing technical expertise to perform certain services; or the cost of offering a service may outweigh the revenue generated by the service.

Firms should meet on an annual basis to review the direction of the practice and the client roster. It should determine how many clients it can comfortably serve, what services it performs best or at the highest rate of profit and the profile its ideal clients.  Problem or “toxic” clients should be terminated.

Once a firm has determined which clients it needs to terminate, it should devise a strategic plan for doing so. It is always a good practice to notify the firm’s insurer and liability carrier of its intent to terminate clients. Liability insurers may want to be informed of potential claims if a disgruntled client is terminated. Insurer’s loss prevention teams are experienced in terminating clients and may offer advice as to how to disengage a “problem” or “toxic” client.

Best practices dictate a disengagement letter sent by certified mail, return receipt requested is the best way to terminate a client. If, however, the client has formed a close personal relationship with a member of the firm then a face to face meeting may be warranted. Then a follow-up letter documenting the meeting should be sent.

Prior to notification, the firm should ensure all required documents are copied or scanned, all documents and authorizations are signed, all fees are paid (if possible) and all client documents are packaged and available for pick-up. Also, prepare the transfer authorization letter ahead of time for the client’s signature so the file can immediately be transferred to the successor CPA.

The disengagement letter need not identify any specific reason for the termination. Ideally, there are no impending, or tax filing, deadlines. If there are the firm should list those deadlines and what needs to be done to comply with the deadline. It is also a good idea to list all of the services the firm had performed for the client. If any projects are in progress, identify the stage of the project and what is necessary for completion.  The disengagement letter should identify the client’s responsibilities moving forward and issues to be addressed with the successor CPA. Finally, the firm should state it will assist in transferring the files to the successor CPA in accordance with the firm’s professional obligations.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Nancy Reimer at [email protected].

Let’s Eat Grandma! Punctuation Matters

Posted on: July 19th, 2018

By: Ted Peters

California Corporations Code Section 1601 provides certain rights to shareholders of corporations doing business in California.  Specifically, as the statute currently reads, corporations are required to open their books and records upon written demand from any shareholder as long as the purpose of the demand is “reasonably related” to the shareholder’s interests.  In 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Innes v. Diablo controls, Inc., 248 Cal.App.4th 139 (2016), held that Section 1601 did not require a corporation to produce records in any particular place; rather, the corporation was required only to produce records in the state where they were located, even if outside of California.

On February 13, 2018, California Representative Brian Maienschein (R) sponsored a bill that would amend Section 1601.  In June, and without a single “no” vote against it, the California Legislature enacted the bill, AB 2237 (Maienschein).  Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill into law on July 9, 2018.

A redlined version of the changes to Section 1601 clearly illustrates that the amendments, which go into effect next year, effectively reverse the holding from Innes.  Specifically, when a shareholder demands an inspection, the records are to be made available for inspection “at the corporation’s principal office in [California], or if none, at the physical location for the corporation’s registered agent for service of process in [California].”  The amendment also provides an alternative procedure which would permit the shareholder to elect to receive the corporation’s books, records, and minutes by mail or electronically, as long as the shareholder agrees to pay the reasonable costs for copying or converting the requested documents to electronic format.

Thus, it is now clear that corporations doing business in the State of California will be required to produce records in California, regardless of where the records are maintained.  The significance of this change is obvious enough, but wait, there’s more… When amending the statute, the legislature made another minor change to the first sentence of the statute.

Previously, what was open to inspection were “The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings…”  As amended, what will be open to inspection will be “The accounting books, records, and minutes of proceedings…”  The insertion of two commas seems innocent enough, but could lead to a heated debate as to the scope of shareholder inspections in general.  The term “accounting” in the original statute could have been interpreted to modify just “books” or both “books and records.” With the amendment, however, it would seem that “accounting books” and “records” are two separate things and a corporation might be justified in refusing to produce “accounting records” to the extent they differed from “accounting books.”

Maybe the drafters of the amendment were simply sticklers for the proper use of punctuation and thought it best to tidy the statute up.  Or maybe they intended to narrow the scope of what records corporations are required to produce.  Or perhaps the change was intended to send no message at all.  Why does it matter and who really cares?  Well, punctuation does matter, even one little comma.  At least grandmothers around the globe think so; there is a world of difference between  “Let’s eat Grandma” and “Let’s eat, Grandma.”

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters at [email protected].