Tax Research UK

Home > Ethics > The seven deadly sins - and tax and morality

The seven deadly sins - and tax and morality

October 26th, 2006

Apparently Ghandi defined the seven deadly sins as:

* Wealth without Work
* Pleasure without Conscience
* Science without Humanity
* Knowledge without Character
* Politics without Principle
* Commerce without Morality
* Worship without Sacrifice

Many accountants would argue with the one I have highlighted. Take this from a partner is E & Y South Africa:

It is my view that morality has no place in the application of tax law since morality is largely subjective.

Which is terribly convenient. Because if there is no morality in the application of tax law it means there’s no right or wrong. And so there need be no guilt for breaking it. And it can be claimed no penalties are due when tax law is broken, because what is the crime? You can then claim that the application of tax law (which is all tax practitioners do) is victimless when abuse takes place (as it does). You can see why accountants, lawyers and bankers like this view.

And absolutely anyone else, bar the amoral, can see why they’re wrong.

Richard Murphy Ethics

Comments (1)

Chris Steel

October 26th, 2006 at 09:45 | #1

Reply | Quote

I like the bit that says:

“Ernst & Young, and I personally, strongly believe that A tax payer should willingly pay the proper amount of tax imposed by Parliament.”

If all tax payers, individuals and companies, paid their codifed tax liabilities as set by their relevant governments

Comments are closed.

US require tax risk to be reported Bono, Tax Research and the Observer

Also worth reading

FT.com / UK / Economy & Trade - UK house prices on downward trend 2010/09/04
Nationwide House Price Index for August, published on Thursday, showed the average price fell by 0.9 per cent in August after a fall of 0.5 per cent in July.
Ed Balls and Martin Wolf: why the Government’s economic policy is wrong | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC 2010/09/04
Ed Balls made a speech to Bloomberg last week, and Martin Wolf commended his argument in the Financial Times today. Both are worth reading in full, but for the time-challenged, here’s a summary. Government policy rests on four pillars: Labour is to blame for the UK’s economic problems; the Government needs to cut expenditure massively because the markets are nervous of continued borrowing; lower government expenditure will lead to increased private sector spending which will create growth; and people who disagree with the Government are ‘deficit deniers’ who would wreck the recovery. All four are (at least probably) wrong.
Carbon diary: UnGovernment unwinding green energy | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC 2010/09/04
The TUC was among the “coalition” of 22 green groups, green manufacturers and countryside bodies warning Chris Huhne against cutting subsidies for green electricity and heating as part of the government’s spending review. Their letter said a new air of uncertainty over government support, prompted by remarks from his Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, will jeopardise job creation, energy security and CO2 targets.
Revenue expects to collect €40m in offshore inquiries - The Irish Times - Fri, Aug 27, 2010 2010/08/28
THE REVENUE Commissioners expect to collect up to €40 million by the end of this year from special investigations into trusts and offshore structures which have been used to evade tax.

Officials are investigating at least 1,133 cases in jurisdictions such as Jersey, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the Cayman Islands where trusts may have been used to keep funds out of the Revenue’s sight.

Many of these funds were designed to create the impression that the non-resident trustees or entities are the owners of the funds, concealing the identities of the Irish beneficiaries.

The Revenue has already collected around €20 million in voluntary disclosures and settlements from 100 cases, or an average of €200,000 per individual, since last October.

It is now focusing its attention on funds across hundreds of trusts where individuals have not made voluntary settlements.
Tax Justice Network: Columbia's Fred Mishkin exposed for promoting Iceland's "prudential regulation" 2010/08/28
We have previously blogged on Iceland's precipitous financial collapse, and linked through to American organisations pushing their toxic anarcho-capitalist agenda in that country. Now check out this link which explores the contribution of Columbia University's Fred Mishkin. Embarrassingly for him, just before the financial crisis washed over Iceland, Mishkin penned a rather ill-conceived report on financial liberalisation in that country claiming that "prudential regulation and supervision is generally quite strong" on the basis of absolutely no research or in-depth analysis, and failing to register that the report was funded by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce - whoops, not the first time we find senior academics and / or business schools failing to declare potential conflicts of interest. Do watch the video link here and watch Mishkin fail to answer the questions about his professional conduct.
Land value tax – not old or New but true Labour | Andy Burnham | Comment is free | The Guardian 2010/08/27
So David Miliband was wrong this week to warn that radical tax reforms of this kind are a retreat to a Labour comfort zone. Instead, the comfort zone we risk slipping into is the New Labour comfort zone that says minimal change and more of the same is the way to go.

We can no longer base our politics on the New Labour approach of trying the patience of Labour members on a daily basis. There is only so long that you can defy gravity and ask people to be relaxed about inequalities that made them Labour in the first place. Now, of all times, we must have the courage of our Labour convictions and set out a credible and principled alternative to the destructive path of the coalition.
Nick Clegg responds to the IFS: another new definition of fairness | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC 2010/08/27
The cuts that the Government plan to intoduce in the CSR will have a disproportionate impact on the poorest, who will lose public services worth around 20 per cent of their household incomes. Whatever additional spending is targed to the worst off families, it will be impossible to protect them from cuts of this scale. International evidence shows us that spending cuts are made, those who have the least feel the most pain.