Quote from Tory MP Andrew MacKay who has quit as parliamentary aide to David Cameron over what the party said was an "unacceptable" expenses claim:
I thought we were acting correctly. We were acting on the professional advice.
The excuse of tax avoiders everywhere.
Here it loud and clear: abusing rules is unethical.
The tax profession should take note.
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:
Be fair, at least he wasn’t only obeying orders. BTW isn’t “tax” and “profession” a contradiction in terms? What I ask is Did Magna Carta Die In Vain? See the blog.
Basic rule – If it sounds dodgy, it probably is.
I wonder what question was actually asked to elicit the professional advice? I have often been asked questions which were clearly designed to point me to a preferred conclusion. I suspect that a lot of the supposed advice given was based on incomplete or biased presentations. Politicians are very good at this.
What a cop out.
“Acting correctly” as in ‘within the letter of the rules’; without having any regard to:
– the spirit of those rules;
– the intent and rationale of those rules;
– what’s reasonable;
– what’s fair;
– what would seem ok if it became public knowledge. 😡
“On the professional advice” provided by whom?
– The fees office?
– Their accountants?(seems unlikely as details of the Additional Costs Allowance doesn’t need to be disclosed on tax returns – unlike all other reimbursed expenses)
“Abusing rules is unethical” – I’d agree with that one too. It’s one of the reasons I gave up giving tax advice after 25 years. I was concerned that I would end up being required to find the flexibility in the rules and to bend them as far as possible. I wasn’t comfortable with that so dropped out of the ‘game’.
Mark
The problem is in making it possible for the likes of you to do it within the spirit of the law
Tax has to be reclaimed for the common good
Richard
My take on this is that tax is based on the law and the law, like the rules of a game or of a club has dividing lines. You are either on the right side or the wrong side.
I’d like to see more examples of rules and laws where the distinction between right and wrong does not depend on the precise wording used.
I’m no lawyer but I suspect that the reason our entire legal system seems to operate on this basis is because of the wider difficulties that arise when you have woolly laws.
The defense these incredibly greedy MP’s (MagPie’s) offer for their immoral & unethical behaviour is mind boggling. I feel even more sorry today for the probation officer who a few years ago was summarily dismissed for going home with a biro he had forgotten was still stuck behind his ear!
Richard,
In your view, is there any room for legitimate “tax planning”? In a “perfect” world what would the role of the tax profession be?
Sorry if this has been previously dealt with, as I said in the other post, I am quite new to your blog.
[…] been asked: In your view, is there any room for legitimate “tax planning”? In a “perfect” world what […]
Min
See http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/05/18/is-there-any-room-for-tax-planning-in-my-world/
Richard
[…] been asked: In your view, is there any room for legitimate “tax planning”? In a “perfect” world what […]
Thanks again, Richard.