{"id":85,"date":"2006-08-01T07:18:02","date_gmt":"2006-08-01T05:18:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2006\/08\/01\/ethics-test-for-tax-planning\/"},"modified":"2006-08-01T07:18:02","modified_gmt":"2006-08-01T05:18:02","slug":"ethics-test-for-tax-planning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2006\/08\/01\/ethics-test-for-tax-planning\/","title":{"rendered":"Ethic’s test for tax planning"},"content":{"rendered":"

I recently applauded Mark Lee’s “cards on the table<\/a>” test for acceptable tax planning. In this Mark says, when talking about the new requirement to disclose tax planning to the<\/span> UK<\/span>’s HM Revenue & Customs, that:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

If your tax advice to clients includes a requirement to (effectively) keep some of their cards face down and hidden, then it probably falls within the disclosure regime. If however all the cards are face up and nothing is hidden from HMRC, you will have nothing to fear from the disclosure regime.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In effect, Mark’s principle is simple. If transparent tax planning appears to comply with the law then it works. I like this but having mused on it for a bit think it’s worthy of extension, because the test does not cover all the possibilities that might need consideration including whether the person doing the planning thinks that current interpretation of the law is wrong and should be challenged (I have taken such a case before now and won it when I felt an injustice was being done) and whether, even if the scheme is transparent and accords with current thinking it offends the practitioners own sense of ethics.<\/span><\/p>\n

As a result I think the test should, perhaps be threefold and go like this:<\/span><\/p>\n

Test 1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n