.png)
.png)
Whose interest?
KEY POINTS
- Are professional bodies entitled to implement a fundamental change without their members’ agreement?
- Is the maintenance of the public’s perception of the tax profession a valid reason for this change?
- The law as enacted by parliament and interpreted by the judiciary should have supremacy.
- Recent debates on tax reported in Hansard give little clue to parliamentary intentions.
- Will the professional bodies listen to other views and engage with those members?
Both Michael Quinlan and Andrew Tall have contributed to the debate on the guidance note Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation (PCRT). Further both are friends of mine so it is a little awkward that I feel an urge to strongly endorse what Michael says on the subject (‘Professional conduct’ 12 January) but am less sure about Andrew’s article...
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.
