Comments on: An accountants duty is to do the right thing http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/ Richard Murphy on tax and corporate accountability Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:57:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Tax Research UK / An accountant’s duty http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/#comment-531223 Tax Research UK / An accountant’s duty Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:53:55 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/#comment-531223 [...] I wrote a while back I think both wrong (although the difference is fundamental with the commentator on my blog, one of [...] [...] I wrote a while back I think both wrong (although the difference is fundamental with the commentator on my blog, one of [...]

]]> By: Tax Research UK / If you’re not independent you’re not a professional http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/#comment-112510 Tax Research UK / If you’re not independent you’re not a professional Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:05:16 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/#comment-112510 [...] This is what professional ethics are about. They require the exercise of independent judgement in the pursuit of what is seen to be in the interest of broader society. That’s why I’ve said before now that an accountant has a duty to others before their duty to the client standing in front of them. It’s the fact that this has been forgotten that has given the ‘amateurs’ the chance to eclipse the professionals. The person who claims to be professional but who does in fact merely seek to serve the interest of the piper who calls their tune is not a professional at all. They’re propagandists. And unsurprisingly no one takes heed of them. Nor should they. [...] [...] This is what professional ethics are about. They require the exercise of independent judgement in the pursuit of what is seen to be in the interest of broader society. That’s why I’ve said before now that an accountant has a duty to others before their duty to the client standing in front of them. It’s the fact that this has been forgotten that has given the ‘amateurs’ the chance to eclipse the professionals. The person who claims to be professional but who does in fact merely seek to serve the interest of the piper who calls their tune is not a professional at all. They’re propagandists. And unsurprisingly no one takes heed of them. Nor should they. [...]

]]> By: Tax Research UK / Do tax practitioners need to exercise moral judgement? http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/#comment-21 Tax Research UK / Do tax practitioners need to exercise moral judgement? Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:52:35 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/#comment-21 [...] As I have noted elsewhere on this site, the practitioner has a duty to more than one client at a time. They must see the world in the round, not in the micro detail of one client and one case if they are to be a true professional. In other words, externalities have to apply to the practitioner’s work and if that is true then externalities have to be considered in the decision making process. The duty to pay tax is an externality in the decision making process, but which has to be considered. If reputation risk is high (as it seems to be for Microsoft and Apple, so they’re hiding their tax planning) or if legality is in question, as is the case in high profile cases such as Barclays seeking to protect its UK customers with accounts in the Channel Islands from the due process of UK tax law under the guise of banking secrecy, then clearly ethics are a key component in the decision process, and in the way it will be judged. I have suggested Apple, Microsoft and Barclays have acted entirely legally but unethically. [...] [...] As I have noted elsewhere on this site, the practitioner has a duty to more than one client at a time. They must see the world in the round, not in the micro detail of one client and one case if they are to be a true professional. In other words, externalities have to apply to the practitioner’s work and if that is true then externalities have to be considered in the decision making process. The duty to pay tax is an externality in the decision making process, but which has to be considered. If reputation risk is high (as it seems to be for Microsoft and Apple, so they’re hiding their tax planning) or if legality is in question, as is the case in high profile cases such as Barclays seeking to protect its UK customers with accounts in the Channel Islands from the due process of UK tax law under the guise of banking secrecy, then clearly ethics are a key component in the decision process, and in the way it will be judged. I have suggested Apple, Microsoft and Barclays have acted entirely legally but unethically. [...]

]]> By: Daniel Wimberley http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/#comment-8 Daniel Wimberley Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:22:59 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/06/an-accountants-duty-is-to-do-the-right-thing/#comment-8 I do have a problem with this - i.e. the notion that it is out of court to present all the possible legal alternatives to a client. In medicine, the practitioner should surely present the diagnosis, and all the various possible treatments / ways forward. OK so someone is pregnant and regrets it. The options are - keep the baby or have an abortion. There must be other, more complex sotuations with more options than just 2. You cannot hide the options. But you can say, "I personally do not agree with option 2" You can even say, "if, after all discussion and counselling, you want option 2, then I will not be able to treat you" - the "go elsewhere" scenario mentioned by Richard. So what is the difference between a tax / legal advisor and the medical practitioner? May be there is one, but what is it? One possible difference is that (in the UK system in any case) the medical practitioner is acting pro bono - and the tab is picked up by the public purse, while the tax advisor is being paid by the client. These two situatuions clearly have different dynamics. But is that enough to account for the difference which i feel exists here? I do have a problem with this - i.e. the notion that it is out of court to present all the possible legal alternatives to a client.

In medicine, the practitioner should surely present the diagnosis, and all the various possible treatments / ways forward.

OK so someone is pregnant and regrets it. The options are - keep the baby or have an abortion. There must be other, more complex sotuations with more options than just 2.

You cannot hide the options. But you can say, “I personally do not agree with option 2″ You can even say, “if, after all discussion and counselling, you want option 2, then I will not be able to treat you” - the “go elsewhere” scenario mentioned by Richard.

So what is the difference between a tax / legal advisor and the medical practitioner?

May be there is one, but what is it? One possible difference is that (in the UK system in any case) the medical practitioner is acting pro bono - and the tab is picked up by the public purse, while the tax advisor is being paid by the client.

These two situatuions clearly have different dynamics.

But is that enough to account for the difference which i feel exists here?

]]>