On the matter of Tax Law

[Infected Mushroom]

A tax lawyer goes to the bar. Someone asks them: “So what do you do for a living?”

Answer: “I help rich people avoid paying taxes.”

Are you impressed? Disgusted? Indifferent? Intrigued?

Is such a preoccupation and way of earning a living honorable, fair, ethical?

In an age where the state needs resources to advance public healthcare, social welfare, law and order etc is it right that people can get rich helping others to avoid paying taxes? While you can say “tax avoidance is different from tax evasion” it’s hard to argue against the notion that most methods of tax avoidance go against the intended purpose/spirit of the tax statutes.

Two questions to discuss:

1. Do you consider the practice of tax law ethical? And by tax law I mean tax lawyers.
2. If your kid said “I want to become a tax lawyer. I want to help rich people pay less taxes” would you be cool with it or would your face frown a bit?

Please justify.

It’s not really a very honorable way to go. It perpetuates inequality and makes it harder for government to finance public works. Also, it promotes too much thrift.

If my child says the quotes, I will frown.

[Kilobugya]

It's highly harmful to society, neither honorable nor fair nor ethical. But the main culprits are the rich people evading taxes, and the politicians allowing so many loopholes in tax laws, the "tax lawyers" are mere accomplice.

As for the child question, I would consider I utterly failed at parenting if that were to happen. And would do my best to understand how I failed so badly and see if I can make the child understand why it's so wrong.

[The Free Joy State]

Helping the wealthy avoid taxes they should pay is an unethical practise and should be illegal. However, as Kilobugya says, the main issue is the number of loopholes in tax law that make it possible for many of the wealthiest people to pay less taxes than their poorer counterparts, when they should pay more to help pay for schools, hospitals and etc.

If my child said that to help the wealthy evade taxes was their goal, I would feel I had failed -- not only as a parent -- but also to instil any feeling of social responsibility in my child. As long as they were young enough, I would work very hard to redress that obvious short-falling of mine.

In an age where the state needs resources to advance public healthcare, social welfare, law and order etc is it right that people can get rich helping others to avoid paying taxes? While you can say “tax avoidance is different from tax evasion” it’s hard to argue against the notion that most methods of tax avoidance go against the intended purpose/spirit of the tax statutes.

Actually, the problem is that the purpose and spirit of many nations' tax statutes actively allows schemes to help the wealthy avoid paying tax.

Such schemes don't "go against the purpose/spirit of tax statutes" at all. In fact, world leaders have even benefitted from such schemes, a measure of how accepted they (unfortunately) are.

[Ethel mermania]

No one is required to pay more in taxes than they are legally required too.

The irs can issue enforcement actions with the full effect of the law, of course you are allowed a tax lawyer to defend yourself.

[The New California Republic]

Just to point out: there is a clear difference between tax avoidance (which is mostly legal and not really as scummy) and tax evasion (which is illegal and scummy as hell). The former is using things like tax deductions, taking tax credits etc, while the latter is things like not reporting income received, not paying taxes owed, and understating tax owed or saying your expenses are higher than they actually are.

Without knowing precisely what this particular lawyer does in the day-to-day dealings of carrying out his work, it's impossible to determine whether they are facilitating tax avoidance or evasion, as we just have this person's word for it, we have very little to go on in terms of substance.

[Mercatus]

We should just be helping everybody avoid taxes. Fuck public infrastructure and healthcare, both are detrimental to the economy because it takes money out of the network of private transfer, and therefore it cannot be used to turn a profit. Taxation, in its enforcement, is theft. It’s literally a fucking ransom you pay every year, and if you don’t pay, federal agents in armored cars with guns come to repossess the house YOU paid for and/or arrest you, when your only crime was not handing money over to the state.

Tell me, how is that not immoral?

[Infected Mushroom]

Just to point out: there is a clear difference between tax avoidance (which is mostly legal and not really as scummy) and tax evasion (which is illegal and scummy as hell). The former is using things like tax deductions, taking tax credits etc, while the latter is things like not reporting income received, not paying taxes owed, and understating tax owed or saying your expenses are higher than they actually are.

Without knowing precisely what this particular lawyer does in the day-to-day dealings of carrying out his work, it's impossible to determine whether they are facilitating tax avoidance or evasion, as we just have this person's word for it, we have very little to go on in terms of substance.

Isn’t it a really really thing line between the two in many places?

It’s a “deductible capital gain” until X years of litigations close the loophole. All the while only the wealthiest are aware/can effectively exploit these. Do we really need these games of distortions between lawyers, the super rich, and the government?

[The New California Republic]

We should just be helping everybody avoid taxes. Fuck public infrastructure and healthcare, both are detrimental to the economy because it takes money out of the network of private transfer, and therefore it cannot be used to turn a profit. Taxation, in its enforcement, is theft. It’s literally a fucking ransom you pay every year, and if you don’t pay, federal agents in armored cars with guns come to repossess the house YOU paid for and/or arrest you, when your only crime was not handing money over to the state.

Tell me, how is that not immoral?

I'd rather not live in an ancap hellhole.

[The Blaatschapen]

Why would I ask people what they do for a living when in a bar?

I go there to escape work. Not to talk about it.

[Jetan]

I take dim view of such practices personally, but as long as it's not illegal that's the extent of it really. In general I'd rather the loopholes in current taxation laws be fixed rather than the taxes raised or new taxes introduced, but I've no expectation of that happening.

[The New California Republic]

Just to point out: there is a clear difference between tax avoidance (which is mostly legal and not really as scummy) and tax evasion (which is illegal and scummy as hell). The former is using things like tax deductions, taking tax credits etc, while the latter is things like not reporting income received, not paying taxes owed, and understating tax owed or saying your expenses are higher than they actually are.

Without knowing precisely what this particular lawyer does in the day-to-day dealings of carrying out his work, it's impossible to determine whether they are facilitating tax avoidance or evasion, as we just have this person's word for it, we have very little to go on in terms of substance.

Isn’t it a really really thing line between the two in many places?

It’s a “deductible capital gain” until X years of litigations close the loophole. All the while only the wealthiest are aware/can effectively exploit these. Do we really need these games of distortions between lawyers, the super rich, and the government?

Not really, there is only a very small grey area between them, as overall the behaviours between them are very different. Usually legitimate tax lawyers will not risk going anywhere near the grey area, lest they tip over into the illegal side. Only those tax lawyers who are willing to break the law will go anywhere near the grey area.

[Awesomeland]

The ultimate truth is that only the poor actually pay taxes anyway. Everyone who isn't at the bottom of the food chain just passes it on as a cost of business. Ultimately, tax rates aren't even particularly well correlated to government revenue: If you look at history, in the US, for instance, the government consistently succeeds in capturing about 20% of the GDP in tax revenue, regardless of what taxes they pass.

[Infected Mushroom]

Isn’t it a really really thing line between the two in many places?

It’s a “deductible capital gain” until X years of litigations close the loophole. All the while only the wealthiest are aware/can effectively exploit these. Do we really need these games of distortions between lawyers, the super rich, and the government?

Not really, there is only a very small grey area between them, as overall the behaviours between them are very different. Usually legitimate tax lawyers will not risk going anywhere near the grey area, lest they tip over into the illegal side. Only those tax lawyers who are willing to break the law will go anywhere near the grey area.

I think what you’re describing is accounting. Tax law is about pushing/exploiting the massive grey areas to the benefit of clients. Something that’s in practice illegal may not be made so until sufficiently borne out by litigations (and by that point other loopholes open)

[The New California Republic]

Not really, there is only a very small grey area between them, as overall the behaviours between them are very different. Usually legitimate tax lawyers will not risk going anywhere near the grey area, lest they tip over into the illegal side. Only those tax lawyers who are willing to break the law will go anywhere near the grey area.

I think what you’re describing is accounting.

No, I'm not.

Tax law is about pushing/exploiting the massive grey areas to the benefit of clients.

No, the grey area here is between bending the law in various ways and actually breaking it. Bending the law itself is not the grey area.

[Kilobugya]

Just to point out: there is a clear difference between tax avoidance (which is mostly legal and not really as scummy) and tax evasion (which is illegal and scummy as hell). The former is using things like tax deductions, taking tax credits etc, while the latter is things like not reporting income received, not paying taxes owed, and understating tax owed or saying your expenses are higher than they actually are.

Sure, one is legal and one is illegal. But being legal doesn't mean that it doesn't have disastrous consequences, that it isn't highly unfair nor that it isn't unethical. Helping rich people avoid contributing a fair amount to taxes, even if legal, is highly unethical.

[The Free Joy State]

Why would I ask people what they do for a living when in a bar?

I go there to escape work. Not to talk about it.

Well, there is always that way of looking at it.

Maybe the tax lawyer is there on a blind date, making awkward small-talk until their date gets the "rescue call", and you happen to overhear?

[Samudera Darussalam]

1. I don't view that kind of occupation in positive light (unethical), but I would keep that opinion to myself.

2. Just how old is the kid to have the thought of 'helping the rich pay less taxes'?
Though rhetorically I would show my....disapproval subtly, and ask why would he want to help rich people pay less taxes when we fully pay one and all that kind of jeez.

[The New California Republic]

Just to point out: there is a clear difference between tax avoidance (which is mostly legal and not really as scummy) and tax evasion (which is illegal and scummy as hell). The former is using things like tax deductions, taking tax credits etc, while the latter is things like not reporting income received, not paying taxes owed, and understating tax owed or saying your expenses are higher than they actually are.

Sure, one is legal and one is illegal. But being legal doesn't mean that it doesn't have disastrous consequences, that it isn't highly unfair nor that it isn't unethical. Helping rich people avoid contributing a fair amount to taxes, even if legal, is highly unethical.

Oh yes, as I said I still think that avoidance is scummy regardless, it's just the illegal element of evasion adds another layer of scuminess to it.

[The Free Joy State]

Just to point out: there is a clear difference between tax avoidance (which is mostly legal and not really as scummy) and tax evasion (which is illegal and scummy as hell). The former is using things like tax deductions, taking tax credits etc, while the latter is things like not reporting income received, not paying taxes owed, and understating tax owed or saying your expenses are higher than they actually are.

Without knowing precisely what this particular lawyer does in the day-to-day dealings of carrying out his work, it's impossible to determine whether they are facilitating tax avoidance or evasion, as we just have this person's word for it, we have very little to go on in terms of substance.

Answer: “I help rich people avoid paying taxes.”

sounds pretty clearly like tax avoidance in the grey-area scheme sense, rather than "hard-working family receiving tax credits to help with childcare" sense, IMO.

And, while there is a difference between evasion and avoidance (quite possibly because many lawmakers have financially benefitted from grey-area schemes, such as off-shore accounts), it does not make it more moral for the uber-wealthy to go into such schemes to avoid paying taxes -- legal as it might be.

[Infected Mushroom]

I think what you’re describing is accounting.

No, I'm not.

Tax law is about pushing/exploiting the massive grey areas to the benefit of clients.

No, the grey area here is between bending the law in various ways and actually breaking it. Bending the law itself is not the grey area.

The clients involved don’t care about that distinction, only whether they can profit (by paying less than what’s rightfully owed) and whether they can get away with it; that’s what this tax law culture promotes and it is wrongful

[Radiatia]

I'm pretty indifferent to be honest and actually I think one of my friends is a tax lawyer.

Most people are naturally going to want to keep their earnings (if they didn't then we wouldn't use demerit taxation or fines as a disincentive against certain behaviours) and whether we like them or not, lawyers are a useful tool to ensure that the state does not overstep its authority (this is true for taxation, criminal matters and any other individual vs. state matter).

Sure there are arguments about how much tax people should should or shouldn't pay and whether higher taxes are beneficial or harmful to society but those are political, not legal, issues.

If you don't like tax law or tax loopholes, change the law or vote for someone who will. Trying to blame tax lawyers for any inequities in the tax code is like covering your living room in garbage and then claiming it would be fine if only you could rid of all those flies that keep buzzing around.

Are tax lawyers ethical? Absolutely.

And the view that they only benefit the rich is such a jaundiced cliché I can barely stop from yawning at these arguments - there are plenty of low income people who may also need these services for matters in which they are overtaxed (and indeed such erroneous overtaxation may well be pushing them into financial hardship.)

[Kilobugya]

Sure there are arguments about how much tax people should should or shouldn't pay and whether higher taxes are beneficial or harmful to society but those are political, not legal, issues.

That's all fine in theory - but in practice, the vast majority of the population wants the rich to pay their share of taxes, so politicians can't too openly lower their taxes. So they add loopholes to the tax code to favor their rich donors and their friends. That's corruption and circumventing democracy.

If you don't like tax law or tax loopholes, change the law or vote for someone who will. Trying to blame tax lawyers for any inequities in the tax code is like covering your living room in garbage and then claiming it would be fine if only you could rid of all those flies that keep buzzing around.

No. The loopholes in the tax code exist on purpose, because those who benefit from them paid (more or less directly) politicians to write them, knowing they'll have tax lawyers to take advantage of them later. They are the product of corruption, and the tax lawyers are willing participant of such a system.

And the view that they only benefit the rich is such a jaundiced cliché I can barely stop from yawning at these arguments - there are plenty of low income people who may also need these services for matters in which they are overtaxed (and indeed such erroneous overtaxation may well be pushing them into financial hardship.)

But low income people can't afford lawyers. They can barely afford lawyers when defending themselves from going to prison, or when trying to keep custody of their children, how would they manage to pay tax lawyers ? Tax lawyers are a not loss if you don't have high enough income, they'll cost you more than than you'll gain. Especially since the tax loopholes are designed to benefit mostly rich people.

[Ethel mermania]

Not really, there is only a very small grey area between them, as overall the behaviours between them are very different. Usually legitimate tax lawyers will not risk going anywhere near the grey area, lest they tip over into the illegal side. Only those tax lawyers who are willing to break the law will go anywhere near the grey area.

I think what you’re describing is accounting. Tax law is about pushing/exploiting the massive grey areas to the benefit of clients. Something that’s in practice illegal may not be made so until sufficiently borne out by litigations (and by that point other loopholes open)

I don't think you understand what tax law practice is. Accountants find the loopholes. Lawyers litigate tax issues and negotiate with the IRS.

[Galloism]

I feel personally attacked.

[Galloism]

I'm not answering this because Galloism scares me!

This is the correct answer for this thread.