Interesting question.
This has been a massive week for tax.
And as far as I can see the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the ACCA, the Chartered Institute of Tax, PWC, KPMG, Ernst & Young, Deloitte; all of them have been quite extraordinarily silent.
Not one of them has been pitched against me on the media, although it is common for them to be so. Even the CBI have opted out.
Why is that? Why have they left the space to the think tanks that are trying to fall off the right edge of the world to defend tax abuse?
Is that becasue they're happy for these people to defend what they or their members do?
Or is it because they're running frightened?
I wonder what Mike Warbuton, John Whiting and Chas Roy-Choudhury have to say? Because they sure as heck have been quiet.
It's all very odd.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Perhaps they see the past week or so as a storm that they can just ride out. They may think it’s best to avoid sticking their necks out while the chances of getting the proverbial tomato in the face are elevated.
it’s not that odd, Richard. as i wrote previously, they’re well and truly slayed! it’s difficult to over estimate what you guys have achieved in the tax debate. the judiciary and parliament have been wringing their hands for decades about the Duke of Westminster principle (or more precisely the distorted version that underpins our multi-billion tax avoidance industry). then all of a sudden a tiny of group of experts like yourself, Private Eye and a few kids from UK Uncut have managed to turn the debate on its head. well done!
the vested interests you’re waiting to join the debate won’t because they know they don’t have a leg to stand on once the distorted version of the Duke of Westminster principle is challenged successfully. for some reason, they never talk about the Ramsay principle!
They may want to hide but they need to be winkled out – by the media. As Richard has so consistently maintained, none of this abuse could take place without their connivance.
One point to appreciate is that many ordinary accountants do not agree with the aggressive tax avoidance that is performed by some members of the profession – and quietly avoid undertaking such work. Unfortunately, it is those at the top of the major accounting firms, who in turn control the various professional bodies, who don’t want to lose a valuable revenue stream who by and large control what is said by the profession.
I also wonder from time to time what impact the large number of former HMRC going into tax practice within the profession has on matters.
stephen, I share your view that many accountants do not support tax avoidance. For a number of different reasons. Many do not have the size of client in their client base to make involvement worthwhile and if they do, bigger smarter accountants peddling schemes to their clients is an easy way for them to be poached., so they steer clear. The majority simply do not understand the schemes and rightly perceive there is too much inherent risk in them to make them commercially worthwhile. Others like Richard find them morally indefensible.
When it comes to who sells these schemes this is where the spotlight needs to fall. Big 4 firms, magic circle and banks yes, but many niche “boutiques” and fly by night tax advisers/financial advisers and lawyers. If more light and more prosecutions were shone onto this sector we would be getting somewhere.
I suspect the large numbers of HMRC going into tax practice make no difference overall. Some of them become criminal tax evaders (see the recent Vantis prosecutions), many hopefully drive up the overall standards of tax compliance, others become whistleblowers against abusive schemes.
Quite similar to the same as the large numbers of accountants entering tax practice.
its because its pointless trying to engage with the media – they run the story they want to regardless of the facts – the panorama programme was a case in point.
The other point to note is that most (if not all) of the major accounting firms would run a mile from promoting schemes like that set up for Carr and would instead leave such schemes to the rather nasty fringe of tax advisers who are often very right wing ideologically and whose moral standpoint is pretty much that all tax is theft. They and their ilk are also pretty active in expressing their undemocratic views in the blogosphere. If the large accounting firms and the institutes have a grain of sense they will recognise that they need to establish and enforce a charter for ethical tax behaviour – if they don’t they will only have themselves to blame if a tighter and tighter legislative route is taken. My guess is that the general public who are facing higher and higher taxes, which they cannot avoid, will not accept anything less.
I fear you may be wrong
They may not set up these schemes
They may point clients towards them
Richard, any evidence at all for this comment? Why on earth would anyone in a Big 4 firm point their clients to another firm of tax advisers? What would be in it for them? They would clearly run the risk of losing their client with nothing to be gained.
Reputational risk
The client gets the service
The accountant is not tainted
I have seen it – and know it is common
Generally speaking, the accountants arranging schemes do not want the bread and butter work. They want the high fee specialist work. Also, they know that they depend on “regular” accountants referring clients to them so poaching the whole job would be bad for business in the long run.
Err, I know at least 1 of the three gentlemen you mention has been on holiday
May be the other 2 too, have you checked?
No of course not
The point was generic anyway
These firms and organisations have other people who can talk, I’, sure