The ICAEW: sailing very close to the wind

Posted on

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales Tax Faculty has said of the payment for tax information from an informant in Lichtenstein:

The current incident raises a whole host of questions, not least as to whether the ends which appear to have been achieved can justify the means employed.

The Financial Times in an editorial last week suggested that in this case the means were justified as they had been employed to target a jurisdiction that was abetting evasion.

Many would argue that such draconian powers should never be entrusted to the government unless their use is subject to extremely stringent conditions and safeguards that can be seen to be operating effectively and which are reviewed on a regular basis.

So we can entrust accountants to not report tax evasion in places like Jersey (not one accountant reported suspected money laundering from tax evasion in Jersey in 2006 - a statistic I find impossible to believe reflected what really went on there) but we can't entrust government to stop it? Is that your argument ICAEW?

Whose side are you on? I think I know what most of the public will believe if you continue to make comments like that.

Disclosure: I am a member of the Tax Faculty.


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: