Dennis Howlett has written some very confused articles on tax evasion over the last few days: so confused that I am not sure where Dennis thinks he's heading.
His latest is worth reading. Because it's the most recent it might suggest that he's been working out his own confusion, because the earlier ones are much harder to fathom, making confusing claims (and quite unusually for Dennis) what appear to be errors of logic.
Take the first. In this he takes issue with me on numerous fronts. Too numerous to worry about. But one of his key contentions is that I should not have said:
Everyone knows that large numbers (but I accept not all) of these [micro] businesses do suppress receipts to pay less tax.
I did this here. Simon Sweetman also questioned my claim, saying this was no longer Revenue thinking. I apologise to Dennis, but not Simon. Dennis rightly picked me up for not referencing my claim. So I'll correct that now. The latest research literature on this is, as far as I know to be found here. The authors, Per Engstr??m and Bertil Holmlund of Uppsala University in Sweden wrote a paper in 2006 called 'Tax Evasion and Self-Employment in a High-Tax Country:Evidence from Sweden'. It's a good paper and adds to the literature in this area. As they note in their abstract:
Self-employed individuals have arguably greater opportunities than wage earners to under-report their incomes. The incentives for underreporting should be especially strong in an economy with generally high taxes. This paper uses recent income and expenditure data to examine the extent of underreporting of income among self-employed individuals in Sweden. A key hypothesis is that underreporting of incomes among the self-employed would be visible in the data as "excess food consumption", for a given level of observed income. Our results confirm the underreporting hypothesis. In particular, we estimate that households with at least one self-employed member under-report their total incomes by around 30 percent. Underreporting appears to be twice as prevalent among self-employed people with unincorporated businesses as among those with incorporated businesses.
That's pretty clear evidence of systematic abuse of the sort I suggest to be a matter of public knowledge. It's also why I hope Simon is wrong about the Revenue not presuming the self employed understate income systematically. All the evidence is that they do. As Lyssiotou, P, P Pashardes and T Stengos noted in 'Estimates of the Black Economy Based on Consumer Demand Approaches' in the Economic Journal 114 reported, in the UK the true income for blue collar self-employed people is more than 100 percent greater than reported income, whereas true income for white-collar self-employed people exceeds reported income by 64 percent.
I'm satisfied that every informed person could have known this, and I note that following his blog in which he made the accusation against me Dennis delved into the academic literature of tax for the first time that I recall, so maybe he realised how I'd respond.
I do, by the way, instinctively believe that Lyssiotou et al overstate the case. But, I also have no problem believing the findings of Engstr??m and Holmlund. Sorry Simon, this is the reality.
PS I've struggled to determine what else Dennis was trying to say in the rest of his post or that which follows on tax evasion. I've asked him directly and have only received cryptic answers. So I'm afraid I've given up the struggle and am presuming that his third article shows where he got to. If so, he seems to agree that the profession is a key supplier of services that at least assist taxation abuse and that greed is the motivator for this. But it's darned difficult to work out his thought pattern on the way.
If you elucidate Dennis I'll engage. If not, I'll stay on the sidelines.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’m sorry Richard but there are limits:
” ……the profession is a key supplier of services that at least assist taxation abuse and that greed is the motivator …”.
I assume by “the profession” you mean qualified accountants ie the majority will be ACCA & ICAEW.
Most of that group are decent law-abiding people. If anything they don’t do enough to minimse their clients’ liabilities! It is the businesses which commit the crime by not declaring the income not the accountants.
Your views are becoming less and less objective by the day.
Thanks for the reference to the Swedish study. Interestingly, the study doesn’t address the fall of social acceptance in evasion as determined by the University of Oslo findings.
Where are the logical flaws in the first piece – you’ve not elucidated them.
To Stuart’s point, I would concur with Richard on the issue as it applies to aggressive tax planners but not to the vast majority of practitioners.
Dennis
Your logic error seems to be in here:
“But let’s take people from where they’re at and not where we want them to be. Approach the issues in a logical manner based on empirical evidence rather than gut feel. It is what this profession thrives upon. Be persuasive and not strident. Discuss rather than lambast.
I too am an idealist. But with a thick pragmatic streak.”
You can’t start logical argument from where people are and hope as an idealist to end up with where you might get to. This is called the ‘is-ought’ problem and was first identified by David Hume. What those who built on his work said was, in essence, that ‘you cannot get an ought from an is’ i.e. you cannot say that something is so something ought to be.
As an idealist you have to start from what you want and plot a path towards it. You cannot plot from where people are and see where you end up. That’s what I believe to be your logical error and why your analysis is not working.
Richard
I’m sorry Dennis but I stand by my original comment.
When Richard’s comments refer to blue-collar self employed I don’t accept that this is a reference to a small group of aggressive tax planners.
BTW I don’t have a problem with the estimates of undeclared income!!
[…] Stuart Jones posted a comment on my piece called ‘Do small businesses evade tax?’. He said: […]