EY fired dozens of US staffers last week for taking multiple online training courses simultaneously, violating the firm’s ethics policies, according to recent published reports.
An investigation at the Big Four Firm revealed that some employees had attended more than one online training class at a time during the “EY Ignite Learning Week” in May, which the firm deemed cheating. None of the terminated employees were offered benefits or severance, an anonymous source from EY told the New York Post.
“At EY, our core values of integrity and ethics are at the forefront of everything we do,” the firm said in a statement. “Appropriate disciplinary action will be taken on any violation of our Code of Conduct and/or US Learning Policy. EY US has terminated individuals who, after thorough investigation, were found to have violated our Global Code of Conduct and US Learning Policy.”
Several of the fired employees, speaking to the Financial Times anonymously, said they did not think they were violating EY policy. One consultant who was fired told the publication that there was no warning that watching multiple sessions at the same time was not allowed.
“Their emails marketing EY Ignite actually encouraged us to join as many sessions as our schedule allowed,” the person told the FT. “We all work with three monitors. I was hoping to hear new ideas that I could bring to the table to separate myself from others.”
Employees on the private employee messaging board Fishbowl questioned whether the firm itself was responsible for using a system that allowed multiple training sessions to be open on Zoom at once and counted overlapping CPE credits
Some staff felt the terminations were a disproportionately severe response, with one Fishbowl user calling it “just bizarre” in a comment. “Perhaps reduce their rating, deduct bonus, or even delay promo, but simply terminating them effective immediately is just cruel… If this was so important, then implement better systems.”
The firm changed its language for future EY Ignite events after beginning its investigation. In an email, viewed by the FT, regarding a training event in August, the firm warned that employees were “expected to complete this learning activity with integrity, including being present for all content and class interactions.”
The email also noted: “You should not take any other learning while completing this activity.”
What’s on the horizon for accounting? The Top 100 Most Influential People offer their predictions for the near future, responding to our question: “What do you think will be the biggest change in accounting in the next 10 years?”
The vast majority of this year’s influencers expect artificial intelligence and its transformational impact on technology, operations, the workforce and much more to be the most significant change catalyst. But other prognostications include new business models, new methods of recruiting and training professionals, and shifting trends in transactional activity and funding sources for the profession.
(To see the full responses of all the candidates for the Top 100, click here. And to see who the Top 100 voted the most influential, see here.)
Lyft Inc. accused the city of San Francisco in a lawsuit of overcharging it $100 million for taxes over five years by unfairly characterizing the compensation earned by drivers who use its app as company revenue.
The company said its hometown calculated its taxes from 2019 to 2023 based on the total amount of money that passengers paid for rides. But Lyft said that isn’t how its business model works.
“Lyft considers drivers as its customers,” the company said in the complaint filed in state court. “Accordingly, Lyft recognizes revenue from rideshare as being comprised of fees paid to Lyft by drivers, not charges paid by riders to drivers. Lyft does not treat drivers as employees for any purpose.”
The tax dispute points to a broader, yearslong controversy around how Lyft, Uber Technologies Inc. and other so-called gig economy firms rely on contractors and avoid having to provide employment benefits. The companies have collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars to settle claims in the U.S. and abroad that they have misclassified workers without reaching a permanent global resolution. In California, drivers were deemed independent contractors under a 2020 initiative that the companies funded and voters approved in 2020.
Lyft said San Francisco’s formula for assessing payroll, gross receipts and homelessness taxes has violated the company’s constitutional rights by forcing it to pay far more than its fair share.
The city’s methodology is “distortive and will grossly overstate Lyft’s gross receipts attributable to Lyft’s business activities in the city,” the company’s lawyers wrote. They noted that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission doesn’t consider driver compensation as part of Lyft’s revenue, nor is it recognized as gross income for federal and state income tax purposes.
The company is seeking refunds for the amounts it says it overpaid, including interest, penalties and fees.
“Lyft doesn’t take operating in San Francisco for granted and we love serving both riders and drivers in our hometown city,” the company said in a statement. “But, we believe the city is incorrect with how it calculated our gross receipts tax for the years 2019-2023.”
Representatives of the San Francisco City Attorney’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.
It’s not the first lawsuit faulting tax authorities for misconstruing the ride-hailing business model. Uber is challenging Georgia tax authorities over about $9 million in sales tax the company says should have been collected from drivers. The company’s arguments got a wary reception from a state appeals court panel this month.
General Motors Co. last year accused San Francisco in a lawsuit of unfairly taxing it $108 million over seven years, despite the automaker having very low sales and almost no personnel in the city. The company said the city used the presence of its Cruise self-driving unit to tie its tax bill to a portion of GM’s global revenue. The case settled for undisclosed terms in February.
The case is Lyft Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, CGC24620845, California Superior Court (San Francisco).
A well-maintained fixed asset register is a cornerstone of effective financial management for any organization. Often underestimated, this detailed inventory of a company’s tangible assets goes far beyond an accounting requirement—it’s a vital tool for enhancing financial accuracy, operational efficiency, and strategic decision-making. In this article, we’ll explore the significance of a fixed asset register and how maintaining it can propel business success.
At its core, a fixed asset register is a comprehensive list of all significant physical assets owned by a business. This typically includes property, equipment, vehicles, machinery, and other long-term investments. However, its true value lies in its ability to provide insights that extend beyond simply cataloging assets.
Ensuring Accurate Asset Valuation One of the primary functions of a fixed asset register is to maintain accurate asset valuations. By updating the register to account for depreciation, improvements, or changes in market value, businesses can ensure their financial statements remain precise and in compliance with accounting standards. Accurate valuations not only inspire stakeholder confidence but are also crucial for meeting regulatory requirements.
Implementing Asset Tagging and Tracking A robust tagging and tracking system is essential for an effective fixed asset register. Using technologies like barcodes, RFID tags, or GPS tracking for mobile assets minimizes the risk of theft or loss and simplifies the process of physical verification during audits. This level of control provides added security and reduces the administrative burden associated with managing assets.
Leveraging Fixed Asset Management Software Specialized fixed asset management software can streamline the maintenance process significantly. These tools automate depreciation calculations, generate detailed reports, and even forecast maintenance requirements. By leveraging such technology, businesses can save time, improve accuracy, and enhance operational efficiency.
Reconciliation and Financial Consistency Regular reconciliation between the fixed asset register and the general ledger is essential to maintain consistency in financial records. This practice helps detect and resolve errors or discrepancies promptly, ensuring financial reports are reliable and up-to-date.
Aiding Strategic Decision-Making A well-maintained fixed asset register is an invaluable resource for strategic planning. It offers insights into asset utilization, helps determine when replacements are necessary, and supports forecasting for capital expenditures. Businesses can make data-driven decisions that maximize the return on their capital investments and enhance overall operational efficiency.
Supporting Insurance and Disaster Recovery For insurance purposes, an accurate fixed asset register is indispensable. It ensures that all assets are adequately covered, simplifies the claims process, and plays a critical role in disaster recovery scenarios. In times of crisis, having a detailed record can make the difference between a swift recovery and prolonged disruption.
Conclusion A meticulously maintained fixed asset register is more than a compliance requirement; it is a strategic advantage. It embodies financial precision, operational control, and informed asset management, enabling businesses to operate more efficiently and make better decisions. By prioritizing the upkeep of this essential tool, finance professionals and business leaders can foster resilience and drive sustainable growth.
Properly managing a fixed asset register not only strengthens day-to-day operations but also positions an organization for long-term success in an increasingly competitive business landscape.