The morality of tax advisers

Most people think they are good citizens – and most have broken the law.

Whether it is infringing speed limits, parking restrictions or copyright limitations, people draw their line of morality in a different place to that of legality.

Due to the nature of the tax profession, some of what is avoidance will always fall within a similarly grey area.

How do we address that?

We have stakeholders with totally competing views that will never be reconciled. Clients, HMRC, the public and politicians all have different ideas on what the role of a tax adviser should be, and that’s a difficult path to navigate.

At the moment, some practitioners walk on the very boundaries of the law, opining that we shouldn’t worry as long as we don’t break it, and dismissing those who disagree as moralising fools. 

Others tentatively step onto the other side, professing that it all comes out in the wash. Still others (indeed, the great majority) make judgement calls as best they can, in line with reams of guidance, but shy away from holding others to the same standards as themselves.

So long as we refuse to engage with the public debate on the morality and role of tax advisers, the waters will become more muddied, our stance will be seen as less certain, and the amount of new guidance and regulation will increase.

We can bring so much to the debate; it is so often ill-informed, and there is no one nearly as well placed to improve the information. Within our ranks, there are myriad views on what is and is not acceptable, and countless examples of much more nuanced transactions that rest on the line where the judgement calls are actually made.

We also have so much to gain: an informed debate will help our stakeholders understand how and why we make judgement calls. It will help us understand how those decisions are perceived. It will improve them going forward. It will assist in the drafting of legislation, and it will show that, as a profession, we are a key participator in society, not a parasitic construct.

However, to engage properly and be seen to do so, we have to be honest. The debate is not about public pronouncements by institutions but the engagement of individual practitioners explaining their positions, their work and their judgements – and it’s also about a profession being confident enough to admit the times when mistakes have been made and show we’ve addressed them.

John Howart is a senior accountant at Anderson Barrowcliff LLP