Meanwhile on Twitter

Client to @XXX \”Do I have to pay this tax?\” \”Yes.\” \”Really?\” \”Yes.\” (Actual answer – No.) Result – malpractice.

….

No, because with your CA you\’re being a thug; bullying others on here to different standards than you hold yourself.

….

So, you lying hypocritical thug, where\’s your \’chapter & verse\’ directors have duty to overpay tax? Substantiate your claim

….

Your biased unreferenced lying nonsense makes me furious that some people may mistake you for a Chartered Accountant.

….

I asked you to present yours re you utter lies. You need to stop misleading people, or resign your professional membership.

….

If you carry on acting so unprofessionally I will have a duty to report you, as you\’re clearly being a nutjob now.

& For reference, these bilious lies & crap you spread, bringing profession into disrepute is what makes me furious.

My word, who could tweetyaca be referring to?

11 comments on “Meanwhile on Twitter

  1. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/04/06/half-way-to-a-redesign/

    “I intend to use Twitter much more to highlight stories found elsewhere”

    Meanwhile….

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576245872797729208.html

    “San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors late Tuesday approved an ordinance that will exclude online messaging service Twitter Inc. and certain other businesses from paying a 1.5% city payroll tax for the next six years.”

  2. And if he’s professionally disciplined, his current “practice” will go through the roof, he’ll portray it as the establishment ganging up on someone who Tells It Like It Is. Simple really.

  3. His response – “I always reference my work”

    Yes, but he generally references it to other things he’s written himself.

  4. Will somebody please help me? I know very little about tax or accountancy, but in a very Janet And John way, I’d like to know if I’ve got the gist of this:

    An accountant is employed by a firm to make sure their financial affairs are in order.

    The accountant’s duty includes making sure the firm is not paying out money where they don’t have to. This includes taxes they are not legally obliged to pay.

    Richard Murphy is advocating that firms pay taxes that they have no legal obligation to pay, on the grounds that they have a “moral obligation” (ie purely subjective with no legal basis) to pay.

    This is not only contrary to what an accountant is employed to do, but against professional practice and ethics.

    That seems to be the gist of it for me, but I’m having a hard time believing an accountant would so brazenly speak out against the established code of practice for his profession where that code of practice includes operating within the bounds of the law.

    Tim adds: You’ve pretty much captured it, yes.

  5. @Jamie: the only thing to add is that accountants are statutorily required to inform HMRC if they suspect their clients are evading taxes, even if this information is acquired under client confidentiality. IE if I let slip to my accountant I had cash in hand payments that don’t appear on my books, he HAS to dob me in to the revenue, or he would be in trouble as well.

    So its entirely fair that accountants work to reduce their clients tax bills legally as much as possible, as they also have the requirement to shop them if they are doing something illegal.

  6. And if your accountant refuses to acknowledge the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion…

  7. Thank you, Jim and Tim – I remember reading something about that in a Dick Francis novel(!). I’m not entirely clueless, but I certainly don’t have anything more than a cursory knowledge about such things.

    Rob – exactly. I don’t think tax avoidance actually exists – you’re either paying tax you owe or you’re evading it. I think it is as black and white as that.

  8. Jamie

    That is really my take on it, too. Avoidance doesn’t exist.

    What our dear Mr. Murphy calls avoidance is correctly applying exceptions, deductions and tax credits or whatever you want to call them authorised by the tax authorities. Anything less and you are not fulfilling your duty to your client (or yourself if you do your own tax).

    It obviously really gets up his moral nose (unless it is him himself before his Damascus moment) or the Guardian which fundamentally changed the nature of its business to avoid a one-off swipe from Her Majesty’s finest when they made a killing on the sale of a business.

    Legally, he is legless. And I wouldn’t contract him as my company’s accountant. He is not fit for purpose.

  9. He’s a Chartered Accountant!!?

    Here’s me thinking all this time he’s a bloody Chartered Tax Adviser.

    Think I’ll dig out my manual and ethical guides, I seem to remember there being a right and/or duty to report members who don’t act in the interests of their clients.

    Honestly, a damned disgrace to the profession!

  10. Jamie, I think the first few times anyone encounters Murphy, they have a hard time wrapping their head around how someone can be so, so, Murphy. I can’t even think of the right word for how he is. He’s something that has to be seen in action several times to be believed.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.