CTS & Associates Reviews (%countItem)
CTS & Associates Rating
Address: 125 Janesville Rd, Thornhill, Ontario, Canada, L4J 7A4
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Fax: |
+1 (905) 881-7304 |
Web: |
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for CTS & Associates
Add new contacts
. He, yep Anthony(Tony) C. from Thornhill CTS+ Associates charge's contingency fees, @30%. Any CA (Chartered Accountant) knows that this is against there ethics. This person will see what his mentor's (***'s) power will bestow on him. I told him about other Chartered Accountants views, and his disregard of his oath, he laughed out loud and said he is above his peers judgement. We will see. Andy H. Sarnia Ontario Canada
My name is Anthony C. I am a CPA. I received my CA designation in 1978. From 1978 to 1988 I was an Auditor with Revenue Canada (Federal Sales Tax) currently CRA. I left Revenue Canada in 1988 to start my Consulting firm, CTS & Associates which I have been operating since. We provide a Contingency Tax Recovery service for clients looking focusing on areas such as Corporate Tax credits, HST, EI, SR&ED, Duty and Workplace Safety. We only charge a fee if we are successful. Our contingency rates vary depending on the program that we are focusing on. We do not provide any traditional Accounting financial statement preparation or filing of corporate tax returns. As stated above our area of operations is strictly and exclusively contingency recovery where we try and identify and recover missed opportunities for refunds for our clients. Providing this type of contingency recovery work is most definitely allowed within the guidelines and bylaws of our governing Accounting bodies.
In August 2015 we entered into an agreement with Andy H. to prepare and file Apprenticeship tax credits for him pertaining to his business ***. Prior to us entering into this agreement with him Andy had 10 years of unclaimed credits, unclaimed because he had not filed for them because he was unaware that he was entitled to them. He was only made aware of his entitlement to these credits because we advised him of his entitlement. In co-ordination with Andy we obtained all the necessary information and data to file the claim, all the while Andy signed off on all the necessary authorizations and paperwork. We filed the claim, the claim was accepted and processed by CRA. The amount of the claim which was substantial was paid to Andy..
When we (CTS) realized that the claim was paid we invoiced *** (Andy). He simply refused to pay, giving one excuse after another. We finally put him in Collections. Then we filed a lawsuit against him. Our lawsuit was successful. We obtained judgement against him this past June (2017). We are now in the phase of trying to collect what is owing to us.
At no time did I ever tell him that as a CPA I could not charge contingency fees. I would not say this as it is not true.. At no time did I ever tell him that I am "above my peer's judgement." This type of conversation did not happen. This is a person who engaged a firm to provide a service and then simply tried to walk away without paying. That is the bottom line.
Tony C.
CPA
I received this response from one of the heads of the Chartered Accountant association he stated: Andy, thank you for your phone message
You mentioned that a CPA has charged you a contingent fee.
As you will note, Rule 215 of the CPA Code prohibits contingent fees in certain cases (as for example, audit engagements or preparation of an income tax return), but permits it under other circumstances as long as the requirements of the Rule are complied with.
I am enclosing the Rule, and the Guidance thereon, for your review.
Another very important requirement is that the client must agree in writing to the basis for determining the fee before the substantial completion of the engagement. As for his statement "At no time did I ever tell him that I am "above my peer's judgement." This type of conversation did not happen." It did happen and was heard by Ted G. his CA employee and his Paralegal at the courthouse Kevin K. The conversation was about a gentleman named Sarosh C.a CPA who is one of the individuals I am presently in contact with now.
In his Customer Comment above Andy states that he did indeed receive confirmation from the CA Association that yes, contingent fees are prohibited for certain types of engagements (audit engagements and preparation of income tax returns) but allowed for others as long as the Requirements of the rules are complied with. The type of work that we did for Andy most definitely falls within the type of work that we (CPAs) are allowed to do under the Rules. Also, we always have a very clear engagement letter signed by the client before any work is even started as we dd so in this case with Andy. The engagement letter clearly stated the nature of work i.e. filing for the Apprentice credits and the basis of the fee, strictly contingency. As I stated in my prior email at no time did I ever say to Andy that "I am above my peer's judgement.". To reiterate this is a case of an individual who was able to recover a substantial amount of funds as a result of CTS making him aware of the possible availability of these funds and CTS processing these claims (with the full co-operation of Andy) which facilitated the payment of these funds to Andy. Only when CTS verified that Andy did indeed receive these funds from CRA did CTS invoice Andy. To repeat, this case has already gone before a judge (June 2017) and we did receive judgement. Andy now needs to pay for services rendered to him in accordance with the agreement that he signed with us and the judgement that he received this past June 2017..
Tony C.
It CLEARLY states in rule 215.2 that the client must be given in writing the basis for the fees. Also the charge for the client has to be inline with what other CPA's charge. I have a letter from another CPA stating that to do the tax credits for the apprenticeship program of which CTS+Associates only did, would be less than $1000.00, not the $15,000 he charged me! 215.2 Other than in respect of an engagement described in Rule 215.1, a member or firm engaged in the practice of public accounting or in a related business or practice may offer or engage to perform a professional service for a contingent fee provided the client has agreed in writing to the basis for determining the fee before the substantial completion of the engagement and:
(a) the fee arrangement does not constitute an influence, interest or relationship which impairs or, in the view of a reasonable observer, would impair the professional judgment or objectivity of the member or a partner of the member in respect of an engagement for which independence is required in accordance with the provisions of Rule 204; or
(b) the fee arrangement is not one which influences, or in the view of a reasonable observer would influence, the result of a compilation engagement performed or an income tax return prepared by the member or a partner for the same client.