- Teks
- Sejarah
TAX PRACTITIONER ETHICSTax avoidanc
TAX PRACTITIONER ETHICS
Tax avoidance and tax evasion: the conflict of
professional ethics and personal ethics
Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax
attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it could be. If he
succeeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then however
unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow
taxpayers may be of his ingenuity he cannot be compelled to pay an
increased tax.
(Lord Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster, 1936)
The tax practitioner, acting as an agent of a client, has a professional
ethical duty to that client to minimise the client’s tax liability by legal
means. Pressure to exploit the law and find loopholes comes from the
client, and fear of losing the client will intensify the personal moral
dilemma of the tax practitioner. In a wider sense, the constant cat and
mouse game of the so-called tax avoidance industry (in which the tax
professionals find a loophole which is then plugged by legislation leaving
the tax professionals to find another hole which in turn will be filled by
more legislation), undermines the integrity of the tax system.
The personal moral dilemma of the tax practitioner is further
intensified by the courts, who permit within certain parameters a grey
area called tax avoidance. The above quotation taken from the cornerstone
tax avoidance case, Lord Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936), demonstrates the dividing line between tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Tax evasion is a criminal offence and involves deliberate falsification of
information and deceit, whereas tax avoidance involves arranging events
and transactions in a certain timescale to secure a tax advantage. There is
no general antiavoidance legislation in the UK that would enable the
courts to cancel a transaction because it is motivated by tax avoidance.
The courts must apply the facts of each individual case to the legislation.
Case law has moved on from the Duke of Westminster case, and the tax
authorities and the courts now see a distinction between artificial
arrangements to avoid tax which they will reject, and arrangements of a
taxpayer’s affairs or selection of a commercial option in order to minimise
tax liabilities. The courts will reject a wholly false scenario and will view
the stages in a series of transactions as one, as in the tax cases Furniss v.
Dawson (1984) and Ramsay v. IRC (1981). However, if a commercial
motivation is evident, the courts are likely to permit a transaction even if
tax avoidance was a primary reason for the events; this was the position
taken in Craven v. White (1988). A more recent case, Pigott v. Staines
Investment Co. Ltd (1995), involved a company which obtained a tax
advantage from transferring profits within the group. The courts decided
that the method of transferring profits was both normal and commercial,
and the fact that the motivation for the transactions was to secure a tax
advantage was incidental. In IRC v. McGuckian (1997), it is clear that the
court did not view tax avoidance as a moral issue. The counsel for the
taxpayer admitted that the complex series of transactions involved in the
case, motivated by tax avoidance, had no ethical merit. Lord Browne
Wilkinson commented that this was irrelevant and that ‘statutory
construction’ was more important than ‘moral approval’. The case was
decided against the taxpayer not on the morality of the tax avoidance
scheme but on the grounds that the series of transactions, following the
principle established in the Ramsay case, had no commercial motivation.
Flint (1997) comments that criticism in the professional press of the
scheme in the McGuckian case, centred on the scheme being ‘flawed’ and
‘unsubtle’ rather than the morality of attempting to avoid tax. The tax
profession has not yet fully addressed the issue of whether they accept
the ethical view that a tax avoidance scheme which is within the letter of
the law but not the spirit, is acceptable. In other words, is there such a
thing as unethical tax avoidance?
Tax avoidance and tax evasion: the conflict of
professional ethics and personal ethics
Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax
attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it could be. If he
succeeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then however
unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow
taxpayers may be of his ingenuity he cannot be compelled to pay an
increased tax.
(Lord Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster, 1936)
The tax practitioner, acting as an agent of a client, has a professional
ethical duty to that client to minimise the client’s tax liability by legal
means. Pressure to exploit the law and find loopholes comes from the
client, and fear of losing the client will intensify the personal moral
dilemma of the tax practitioner. In a wider sense, the constant cat and
mouse game of the so-called tax avoidance industry (in which the tax
professionals find a loophole which is then plugged by legislation leaving
the tax professionals to find another hole which in turn will be filled by
more legislation), undermines the integrity of the tax system.
The personal moral dilemma of the tax practitioner is further
intensified by the courts, who permit within certain parameters a grey
area called tax avoidance. The above quotation taken from the cornerstone
tax avoidance case, Lord Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936), demonstrates the dividing line between tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Tax evasion is a criminal offence and involves deliberate falsification of
information and deceit, whereas tax avoidance involves arranging events
and transactions in a certain timescale to secure a tax advantage. There is
no general antiavoidance legislation in the UK that would enable the
courts to cancel a transaction because it is motivated by tax avoidance.
The courts must apply the facts of each individual case to the legislation.
Case law has moved on from the Duke of Westminster case, and the tax
authorities and the courts now see a distinction between artificial
arrangements to avoid tax which they will reject, and arrangements of a
taxpayer’s affairs or selection of a commercial option in order to minimise
tax liabilities. The courts will reject a wholly false scenario and will view
the stages in a series of transactions as one, as in the tax cases Furniss v.
Dawson (1984) and Ramsay v. IRC (1981). However, if a commercial
motivation is evident, the courts are likely to permit a transaction even if
tax avoidance was a primary reason for the events; this was the position
taken in Craven v. White (1988). A more recent case, Pigott v. Staines
Investment Co. Ltd (1995), involved a company which obtained a tax
advantage from transferring profits within the group. The courts decided
that the method of transferring profits was both normal and commercial,
and the fact that the motivation for the transactions was to secure a tax
advantage was incidental. In IRC v. McGuckian (1997), it is clear that the
court did not view tax avoidance as a moral issue. The counsel for the
taxpayer admitted that the complex series of transactions involved in the
case, motivated by tax avoidance, had no ethical merit. Lord Browne
Wilkinson commented that this was irrelevant and that ‘statutory
construction’ was more important than ‘moral approval’. The case was
decided against the taxpayer not on the morality of the tax avoidance
scheme but on the grounds that the series of transactions, following the
principle established in the Ramsay case, had no commercial motivation.
Flint (1997) comments that criticism in the professional press of the
scheme in the McGuckian case, centred on the scheme being ‘flawed’ and
‘unsubtle’ rather than the morality of attempting to avoid tax. The tax
profession has not yet fully addressed the issue of whether they accept
the ethical view that a tax avoidance scheme which is within the letter of
the law but not the spirit, is acceptable. In other words, is there such a
thing as unethical tax avoidance?
0/5000
TAX PRACTITIONER ETHICSTax avoidance and tax evasion: the conflict ofprofessional ethics and personal ethicsEvery man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the taxattaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it could be. If hesucceeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then howeverunappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellowtaxpayers may be of his ingenuity he cannot be compelled to pay anincreased tax.(Lord Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster, 1936)The tax practitioner, acting as an agent of a client, has a professionalethical duty to that client to minimise the client’s tax liability by legalmeans. Pressure to exploit the law and find loopholes comes from theclient, and fear of losing the client will intensify the personal moraldilemma of the tax practitioner. In a wider sense, the constant cat andmouse game of the so-called tax avoidance industry (in which the taxprofessionals find a loophole which is then plugged by legislation leavingthe tax professionals to find another hole which in turn will be filled bymore legislation), undermines the integrity of the tax system.The personal moral dilemma of the tax practitioner is furtherintensified by the courts, who permit within certain parameters a greyarea called tax avoidance. The above quotation taken from the cornerstonetax avoidance case, Lord Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936), demonstrates the dividing line between tax evasion and tax avoidance.Tax evasion is a criminal offence and involves deliberate falsification of
information and deceit, whereas tax avoidance involves arranging events
and transactions in a certain timescale to secure a tax advantage. There is
no general antiavoidance legislation in the UK that would enable the
courts to cancel a transaction because it is motivated by tax avoidance.
The courts must apply the facts of each individual case to the legislation.
Case law has moved on from the Duke of Westminster case, and the tax
authorities and the courts now see a distinction between artificial
arrangements to avoid tax which they will reject, and arrangements of a
taxpayer’s affairs or selection of a commercial option in order to minimise
tax liabilities. The courts will reject a wholly false scenario and will view
the stages in a series of transactions as one, as in the tax cases Furniss v.
Dawson (1984) and Ramsay v. IRC (1981). However, if a commercial
motivation is evident, the courts are likely to permit a transaction even if
tax avoidance was a primary reason for the events; this was the position
taken in Craven v. White (1988). A more recent case, Pigott v. Staines
Investment Co. Ltd (1995), involved a company which obtained a tax
advantage from transferring profits within the group. The courts decided
that the method of transferring profits was both normal and commercial,
and the fact that the motivation for the transactions was to secure a tax
advantage was incidental. In IRC v. McGuckian (1997), it is clear that the
court did not view tax avoidance as a moral issue. The counsel for the
taxpayer admitted that the complex series of transactions involved in the
case, motivated by tax avoidance, had no ethical merit. Lord Browne
Wilkinson commented that this was irrelevant and that ‘statutory
construction’ was more important than ‘moral approval’. The case was
decided against the taxpayer not on the morality of the tax avoidance
scheme but on the grounds that the series of transactions, following the
principle established in the Ramsay case, had no commercial motivation.
Flint (1997) comments that criticism in the professional press of the
scheme in the McGuckian case, centred on the scheme being ‘flawed’ and
‘unsubtle’ rather than the morality of attempting to avoid tax. The tax
profession has not yet fully addressed the issue of whether they accept
the ethical view that a tax avoidance scheme which is within the letter of
the law but not the spirit, is acceptable. In other words, is there such a
thing as unethical tax avoidance?
information and deceit, whereas tax avoidance involves arranging events
and transactions in a certain timescale to secure a tax advantage. There is
no general antiavoidance legislation in the UK that would enable the
courts to cancel a transaction because it is motivated by tax avoidance.
The courts must apply the facts of each individual case to the legislation.
Case law has moved on from the Duke of Westminster case, and the tax
authorities and the courts now see a distinction between artificial
arrangements to avoid tax which they will reject, and arrangements of a
taxpayer’s affairs or selection of a commercial option in order to minimise
tax liabilities. The courts will reject a wholly false scenario and will view
the stages in a series of transactions as one, as in the tax cases Furniss v.
Dawson (1984) and Ramsay v. IRC (1981). However, if a commercial
motivation is evident, the courts are likely to permit a transaction even if
tax avoidance was a primary reason for the events; this was the position
taken in Craven v. White (1988). A more recent case, Pigott v. Staines
Investment Co. Ltd (1995), involved a company which obtained a tax
advantage from transferring profits within the group. The courts decided
that the method of transferring profits was both normal and commercial,
and the fact that the motivation for the transactions was to secure a tax
advantage was incidental. In IRC v. McGuckian (1997), it is clear that the
court did not view tax avoidance as a moral issue. The counsel for the
taxpayer admitted that the complex series of transactions involved in the
case, motivated by tax avoidance, had no ethical merit. Lord Browne
Wilkinson commented that this was irrelevant and that ‘statutory
construction’ was more important than ‘moral approval’. The case was
decided against the taxpayer not on the morality of the tax avoidance
scheme but on the grounds that the series of transactions, following the
principle established in the Ramsay case, had no commercial motivation.
Flint (1997) comments that criticism in the professional press of the
scheme in the McGuckian case, centred on the scheme being ‘flawed’ and
‘unsubtle’ rather than the morality of attempting to avoid tax. The tax
profession has not yet fully addressed the issue of whether they accept
the ethical view that a tax avoidance scheme which is within the letter of
the law but not the spirit, is acceptable. In other words, is there such a
thing as unethical tax avoidance?
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
PAJAK PRAKTISI ETIKA
Pajak penghindaran pajak dan penggelapan: konflik
etika profesi dan etika pribadi
Setiap orang berhak jika dia bisa mengatur urusannya sehingga pajak
melampirkan bawah Kisah tepat adalah kurang dari itu bisa. Jika ia
berhasil memerintahkan mereka sehingga untuk mengamankan hasil itu, maka bagaimanapun
tidak menghargai Komisaris Inland Revenue atau sesama
pembayar pajak mungkin kecerdikan dia tidak bisa dipaksa untuk membayar
pajak meningkat.
(Tuhan Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster, 1936)
Praktisi pajak, bertindak sebagai agen dari klien, memiliki profesional
tugas etis untuk klien untuk meminimalkan kewajiban pajak klien dengan hukum
berarti. Tekanan untuk mengeksploitasi hukum dan mencari celah berasal dari
klien, dan takut kehilangan klien akan mengintensifkan moral pribadi
dilema praktisi pajak. Dalam arti yang lebih luas, konstanta kucing dan
tikus permainan yang disebut industri penghindaran pajak (di mana pajak
profesional menemukan celah yang kemudian dipasang oleh undang-undang meninggalkan
para profesional pajak untuk menemukan lubang lain yang pada gilirannya akan diisi oleh
lebih undang-undang), merusak integritas sistem pajak.
Dilema moral pribadi dari praktisi pajak lebih
diintensifkan oleh pengadilan, yang mengizinkan dalam batasan tertentu abu-abu
daerah yang disebut penghindaran pajak. Kutipan di atas diambil dari landasan
kasus penghindaran pajak, Tuhan Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936), menunjukkan garis pemisah antara penggelapan pajak dan penghindaran pajak.
Penghindaran pajak adalah tindak pidana dan melibatkan pemalsuan yang disengaja
informasi dan kebohongan, sedangkan penghindaran pajak melibatkan mengatur peristiwa
dan transaksi dalam skala waktu tertentu untuk mengamankan keuntungan pajak. Ada
tidak ada undang-undang antiavoidance umum di Inggris yang akan memungkinkan
pengadilan untuk membatalkan transaksi karena termotivasi oleh penghindaran pajak.
Pengadilan harus menerapkan fakta setiap kasus individu untuk undang-undang.
Kasus hukum telah pindah dari Duke of Westminster kasus, dan pajak
pemerintah dan pengadilan sekarang melihat perbedaan antara buatan
pengaturan untuk menghindari pajak yang mereka akan menolak, dan pengaturan dari
urusan wajib pajak atau pemilihan opsi komersial untuk meminimalkan
kewajiban pajak. Pengadilan akan menolak skenario yang sepenuhnya palsu dan akan melihat
tahapan dalam serangkaian transaksi sebagai salah satu, seperti dalam kasus pajak Furniss v.
Dawson (1984) dan Ramsay v. IRC (1981). Namun, jika komersial
motivasi jelas, pengadilan cenderung mengizinkan transaksi bahkan jika
penghindaran pajak adalah alasan utama untuk acara; ini adalah posisi
yang diambil di Craven v. Putih (1988). Sebuah kasus yang lebih baru, Pigott v. Staines
Investasi Co Ltd (1995), yang terlibat perusahaan yang memperoleh pajak
keuntungan dari mentransfer keuntungan dalam kelompok. Pengadilan memutuskan
bahwa metode mentransfer keuntungan adalah normal dan komersial,
dan fakta bahwa motivasi untuk transaksi adalah untuk mengamankan pajak
keuntungan adalah insidental. Dalam IRC v. McGuckian (1997), jelas bahwa
pengadilan tidak melihat penghindaran pajak sebagai isu moral. Nasihat untuk
wajib pajak mengakui bahwa serangkaian kompleks transaksi yang terlibat dalam
kasus, termotivasi oleh penghindaran pajak, tidak etis jasa. Lord Browne
Wilkinson berkomentar bahwa ini adalah tidak relevan dan bahwa 'hukum
konstruksi' lebih penting daripada 'persetujuan moral ". Kasus ini
memutuskan wajib pajak tidak pada moralitas penghindaran pajak
skema tetapi dengan alasan bahwa serangkaian transaksi, mengikuti
prinsip yang ditetapkan dalam kasus Ramsay, tidak motivasi komersial.
Flint (1997) berkomentar bahwa kritik dalam profesional pers
skema dalam kasus McGuckian, berpusat pada skema menjadi 'cacat' dan
'unsubtle' daripada moralitas mencoba untuk menghindari pajak. Pajak
profesi belum sepenuhnya ditangani masalah apakah mereka menerima
pandangan etika yang skema penghindaran pajak yang ada di dalam surat
hukum tetapi tidak semangat, diterima. Dengan kata lain, apakah ada seperti
hal sebagai penghindaran pajak tidak etis?
Pajak penghindaran pajak dan penggelapan: konflik
etika profesi dan etika pribadi
Setiap orang berhak jika dia bisa mengatur urusannya sehingga pajak
melampirkan bawah Kisah tepat adalah kurang dari itu bisa. Jika ia
berhasil memerintahkan mereka sehingga untuk mengamankan hasil itu, maka bagaimanapun
tidak menghargai Komisaris Inland Revenue atau sesama
pembayar pajak mungkin kecerdikan dia tidak bisa dipaksa untuk membayar
pajak meningkat.
(Tuhan Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster, 1936)
Praktisi pajak, bertindak sebagai agen dari klien, memiliki profesional
tugas etis untuk klien untuk meminimalkan kewajiban pajak klien dengan hukum
berarti. Tekanan untuk mengeksploitasi hukum dan mencari celah berasal dari
klien, dan takut kehilangan klien akan mengintensifkan moral pribadi
dilema praktisi pajak. Dalam arti yang lebih luas, konstanta kucing dan
tikus permainan yang disebut industri penghindaran pajak (di mana pajak
profesional menemukan celah yang kemudian dipasang oleh undang-undang meninggalkan
para profesional pajak untuk menemukan lubang lain yang pada gilirannya akan diisi oleh
lebih undang-undang), merusak integritas sistem pajak.
Dilema moral pribadi dari praktisi pajak lebih
diintensifkan oleh pengadilan, yang mengizinkan dalam batasan tertentu abu-abu
daerah yang disebut penghindaran pajak. Kutipan di atas diambil dari landasan
kasus penghindaran pajak, Tuhan Tomlin IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936), menunjukkan garis pemisah antara penggelapan pajak dan penghindaran pajak.
Penghindaran pajak adalah tindak pidana dan melibatkan pemalsuan yang disengaja
informasi dan kebohongan, sedangkan penghindaran pajak melibatkan mengatur peristiwa
dan transaksi dalam skala waktu tertentu untuk mengamankan keuntungan pajak. Ada
tidak ada undang-undang antiavoidance umum di Inggris yang akan memungkinkan
pengadilan untuk membatalkan transaksi karena termotivasi oleh penghindaran pajak.
Pengadilan harus menerapkan fakta setiap kasus individu untuk undang-undang.
Kasus hukum telah pindah dari Duke of Westminster kasus, dan pajak
pemerintah dan pengadilan sekarang melihat perbedaan antara buatan
pengaturan untuk menghindari pajak yang mereka akan menolak, dan pengaturan dari
urusan wajib pajak atau pemilihan opsi komersial untuk meminimalkan
kewajiban pajak. Pengadilan akan menolak skenario yang sepenuhnya palsu dan akan melihat
tahapan dalam serangkaian transaksi sebagai salah satu, seperti dalam kasus pajak Furniss v.
Dawson (1984) dan Ramsay v. IRC (1981). Namun, jika komersial
motivasi jelas, pengadilan cenderung mengizinkan transaksi bahkan jika
penghindaran pajak adalah alasan utama untuk acara; ini adalah posisi
yang diambil di Craven v. Putih (1988). Sebuah kasus yang lebih baru, Pigott v. Staines
Investasi Co Ltd (1995), yang terlibat perusahaan yang memperoleh pajak
keuntungan dari mentransfer keuntungan dalam kelompok. Pengadilan memutuskan
bahwa metode mentransfer keuntungan adalah normal dan komersial,
dan fakta bahwa motivasi untuk transaksi adalah untuk mengamankan pajak
keuntungan adalah insidental. Dalam IRC v. McGuckian (1997), jelas bahwa
pengadilan tidak melihat penghindaran pajak sebagai isu moral. Nasihat untuk
wajib pajak mengakui bahwa serangkaian kompleks transaksi yang terlibat dalam
kasus, termotivasi oleh penghindaran pajak, tidak etis jasa. Lord Browne
Wilkinson berkomentar bahwa ini adalah tidak relevan dan bahwa 'hukum
konstruksi' lebih penting daripada 'persetujuan moral ". Kasus ini
memutuskan wajib pajak tidak pada moralitas penghindaran pajak
skema tetapi dengan alasan bahwa serangkaian transaksi, mengikuti
prinsip yang ditetapkan dalam kasus Ramsay, tidak motivasi komersial.
Flint (1997) berkomentar bahwa kritik dalam profesional pers
skema dalam kasus McGuckian, berpusat pada skema menjadi 'cacat' dan
'unsubtle' daripada moralitas mencoba untuk menghindari pajak. Pajak
profesi belum sepenuhnya ditangani masalah apakah mereka menerima
pandangan etika yang skema penghindaran pajak yang ada di dalam surat
hukum tetapi tidak semangat, diterima. Dengan kata lain, apakah ada seperti
hal sebagai penghindaran pajak tidak etis?
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- Remarks
- Disparities
- Keep strong
- itinerary
- Hi Rudi and Novtarista – are you able to
- apakah kamu merindukan aku ??
- what is your name
- Apa ini hanya bercanda?jangan sampai ole
- Aku cinta kamu sampai kapan pun
- Sa adhzillu uhibbuka wa in thoola intidh
- combined seismic coefficient
- anak laki ku sedang bersenda gurau denga
- Featuring today's indonesia pop hits and
- BackgroundIt has been recently reported
- kamu aku untuk selamanya
- have you missed me??
- clean sheets
- Kamu adalah wanita yang sangat emosional
- anak laki ku sedang bersenda gurau denga
- klindamisin fosfat merupakan antibiotik
- The English defender is presumably enjoy
- how do you do
- DRUNK OFF THAT POWER AND FOUGHT DIFFEREN
- Disparities
