Brookfield FO contract
I'm a retired pilot who was approached by a young guy who I know through our flying club looking for some advice regarding a contract he was offered with Brookfield. I sent him off to my old accountant and the accountant actually laughed at the contract.
However when the FO told BRK that he was not going to use any of the three accountants named in the contract he was bullied into using one of them on the basis that if he did not then he would not be paid.
The contract is not worth the paper it is written on. The contractor is responsible for filing his taxes. The question arises then if there is a problem with the tax return filed by the tax advisers named in the contract or with advise they give.
The professional opinion that we got is that the pilot would be able to sue Brookfield for any losses resulting from the actions or advice of the tax adviser that they were forced to use.
The other side of it is that without providing an indemnity to the pilot BRK can't legally enforce the contract and make a pilot use one of the accountants in the contract.
It is likely that a pilot could take a legal case and prove that by signing the contract, BRK are in fact agreeing to indemnify the pilot against any losses incurred as a result of being forced to use an accountant of BRK's nomination.
However the reality is that any FO who even considers standing up to BRK on this matter is being left in no doubt as to the effect it would have on the amount of time his name will appear on the roster.
Its a disgraceful situation, but so long as everyone who signs the contract lets BRK know that they appreciate that by making them use the services of one of the accountants named in the contract BRK are accepting liability for any losses incurred by the contractor pilot as a result of the actions or advice of the accountants used. This would include paying fees to another tax advisor to sort out the errors.
It will be interesting to see if BRK remain as bullish in the face of the potential expenses if a few guys let them know that they expect BRK to cover any losses incurred as a result of the actions or advice of the accountant forced on them.
In general legal terms a contractor does not have to employ the services of an accountant if they don't want to. You are responsible for your own taxes. This means that even if you use a tax adviser to prepare and file your return the tax office will still treat it as though you had prepared it and sent it in yourself.
It like going to get your car serviced before getting snediong if for its MOT. If it fails its your problem and not the mechanic who serviced it even if he told you it was fine and would pass no worries.
So any BRK guys who are being forced to pay for an accountant named in the contract make sure you make BRK aware of the fact that in the event of a loss to you as a result of the actions of their accountants you will under the terms of the contract between you and BRK, expect them to make good on any losses.