Leaderboard

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is reportedly pressing PricewaterhouseCoopers and other major accounting firms to drop their longstanding mandatory retirement age policies, and the American Institute of CPAs is asking them to stop. EEOC’s Chicago office is asking PwC to eliminate its mandatory retirement age of 60 for partners and principals. A 1967 law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, prohibits mandatory retirement ages for employees at most types of businesses, but partnerships such as accounting firms are typically exempted on the theory that business owners can’t discriminate against themselves. A mandatory retirement age policy has been in place at PwC’s pre-merger predecessor firms Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand since the 1960s, according to the WSJ, but the EEOC did not begin prodding PwC to change the policy until 2010. The firm asked the EEOC to clarify its concerns in January of this year, and the agency responded by merely describing a six-part test from a 2003 decision by the Supreme Court in a case known as Clackamas Gastroenterology v. Wells to determine who qualifies as an employee in a partnership. PwC’s attorneys were already well aware of the Clackamas test and asked the EEOC for the opportunity to work out a proposal to address the agency’s concerns. But the EEOC reportedly broke off negotiations with the firm and is considering the possibility of suing PwC to change its mandatory retirement policy. The EEOC is reportedly looking at Deloitte and KPMG as well, and that is raising worries in the CPA profession that it may begin pressuring the accounting profession at large to drop mandatory retirement age policies, which have traditionally enabled younger members of the firms to advance in their careers and eventually make partner. In a letter to members of the EEOC, the AICPA has expressed concern that a significant expansion of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act would be detrimental to the accounting profession and respectfully requested that the EEOC decline to continue on this path. In a June 25 letter from AICPA president and CEO Barry C. Melancon, the Institute wrote, “We do not dispute that hundreds of thousands of non-partner employees are appropriately covered by the ADEA. However, we believe that accounting firm partners (those who own and control a portion of each firm) are not covered by the ADEA, and we do not believe they should be under consideration, as the possible action contends. Our position is consistent with—and relies upon—longstanding EEOC policy that presumes that partners are not ‘employees’ for purposes of anti-discrimination laws. A change that treats accounting firm partners as ‘employees’ would upend the long-established expectations and business reliance interests of the accounting profession.” “Accounting firms have structured their partners’ compensation, capital contributions, buyouts, pensions, agreed-upon retirement dates, deferred compensation, voting rights, benefits, governance, and termination policies in reliance on the specific understandings evidenced by partnership agreements,” Melancon pointed out. “In particular, retirement policy provisions allow for the predictable progression of lesser tenured individuals into the partnership, and facilitate the orderly transition of a firm’s clients from senior partners to junior partners.” “As the EEOC considers whether to expand the ADEA’s scope, we hope you will maintain the flexibility that allows CPAs to organize themselves and plan their succession as they see fit within the bounds of the existing law,” the AICPA letter concluded. http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Concern-Mounts-Mandatory-Retirement-Age-Policies-Accounting-Firms-67290-1.html?ET=webcpa:e7322:61496a:&st=email While I think there are good arguments that 60 may be to low, that's not really the issue that bothers me. It's that the EEOC is ignoring the laws it was created to enforce, refusing to discuss the legal issues, and using the threat of very costly legal battles to try to bully their targets into doing what the law clearly does not require.

Sent to me some years ago... your mileage may vary. I am passing this on to you because it has definitely worked for me. By following the simple advice I read in an article, I have finally found inner peace. The article read: "The way to achieve inner peace is to finish all the things you've started." Such simple advice. So, I looked around to see all the things I started and hadn't finished. Today I finished one bottle of red wine, a bottle of Jack Daniel's, my Prozac, a box of chocolates and a half gallon of rocky road ice-cream. You have no idea how good I feel......

As the bus stopped and it was her turn to get on, she became aware that her skirt was way too tight to allow her leg to come up to the height of the first step of the bus. Slightly embarrassed and with a quick smile to the bus driver, she reached behind her to unzip her skirt a little, thinking that this would give her enough slack to raise her leg. She tried to take the step, only to discover that she still couldn't! So, a little more embarrassed, she once again reached behind her to unzip her skirt a little more, and for the second time attempted the step. Once again, much to her chagrin, she could not raise her leg. With a little smile to the driver, she again reached behind to unzip a little more and yet again was unable to take the step. About this time, a large Texan who was standing behind her picked her up easily by the waist and placed her gently on the step of the bus. She went ballistic and turned to the would-be Samaritan and screeched, "How dare you touch my body! I don't even know who you are!" The Texan smiled, tipped his hat, and drawled, "Well, ma'am, normally I would agree with you, but after you unzipped my fly three times, I kind'a figured we was pretty good friends."

Just in time to get the requirements reinstated to have a huge rush for CPE in 2013. I am doing mine anyway, just in case. I am going to hire Justin Case to work for me.

You slightly misread, or I did not make it clear, that the point you did accept, is the point that bothers me. Sure, once we efile a return it is on the software company servers and the IRS and state servers. But it's also on mine, and if I need for some reason to look at a return I did 8 years ago, it's there AND SO IS THE PROGRAM THAT CREATED IT. But if I use a 'cloud' program, and then I change companies, how much access will I have to the files? Yes, I can store a pdf copy, but I can't, as I understand it, manipulate a file except through their program. If so, and I want to amend a return I filed through a company I no longer use, do I have to recreate it in the new software? Or if a client wants to know, "If back In 19__, I had overlooked _______ what would that have changed on my return?" can I go back and 'play with the numbers'?

The biggest problem with our system of government is career politicians and their need for the financial support of major contributors. Even the best of our politicians should be replaced after feeding at the public trough too long. What we need is term limits: one term in office and one term in prison.

>the sole legitimate purpose of government is to secure our rights... not dependent upon any government<< The rights mentioned are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (I believe the right to property was specifically removed from mention.) Then it says that people agree to government so they can secure these rights. In our country, we do the agreeing in a certain formal way, called elected representatives. And those representatives secure those rights by passing laws. And the laws embrace a social compassion, based in part on a long-standing philosophy that faith without good deeds is dead.. Other forms of government also use public resources to make sure everyone has those rights, but most of us think our way is best. From time to time we consider whether we should avoid compassion as a society and require staunch individualism, but that hasn't worked out very well in the matter of good deeds.

Weight loss - yes! Reminds me when I was sitting in a meeting beside a guy who kept pulling something out of his pocket and munching on it. It had an odd smell, and when I asked him about it he said he's on the "Purina" diet. He explained that he carries bite-size bits of dog food with him and snacks on it. So far he's lost 30 lbs. I asked if he'd had any problems and he said 'Nothing other than the few days I spent in the hospital." Shocked, I asked if it had created some sort of digestive blockage. He replied, "Oh no, that wasn't the problem at all. I was walking down the street and spotted a really nice-looking blonde Laborador Retriever across the street. I couldn't resist the urge to run over and give her a sniff. I was so distracted I never saw the car that hit me. It put me in the hospital for a week, but I'm doing fine now."

In case you needed a chuckle... Weight Loss Plan A man calls a company and orders their 5-day, 10 lb. weight loss program. The next day, there's a knock on the door and there stands before him a voluptuous, athletic, 19 year old babe dressed in nothing but a pair of Nike running shoes and a sign around her neck. ... She introduces herself as a representative of the weight loss company. The sign reads, "If you can catch me, you can have me." Without a second thought, he takes off after her. A few miles later huffing and puffing, he finally gives up. The same girl shows up for the next four days and the same thing happens. On the fifth day, he weighs himself and is delighted to find he has lost 10 lbs. as promised. He calls the company and orders their 5-day/20 pound program. The next day there's a knock at the door and there stands the most stunning and beautiful woman he has ever seen in his life. She is wearing nothing but Reebok running shoes and a sign around her neck that reads, "If you catch me you can have me." Well, he's out the door after her like a shot. This girl is in excellent shape and he does his best, but no such luck. So for the next four days, the same routine happens with him gradually getting in better and better shape. Much to his delight on the fifth day when he weighs himself, he discovers that he has lost another 20 lbs. as promised. He decides to go for broke and calls the company to order the 7-day/50 pound program. "Are you sure?" asks the representative on the phone. "This is our most rigorous program." "Absolutely," he replies, "I haven't felt this good in years." The next day there's a knock at the door; and when he opens it he finds a huge muscular guy standing there wearing nothing but pink running shoes and a sign around his neck that reads,"If I catch you, you are mine!!!" He lost 63 pounds that week.