Ritchieism of the day

It’s time professional people changed their tune: their duty is to support tax systems – not undermine them.


Just to take an extreme example: the duty of a barrister when defending someone accused of tax offences is to go all Soviet on them? Yes, yes, you\’re right, my client is a horrible person who should be locked up forever because of his attempt to undermine the State?

There\’s no room at all for a professional\’s duty to defend us from the State and its tax system?

I\’ve said before that I think Ritchie\’s a Royalist and this is further proof.

8 thoughts on “Ritchieism of the day”

  1. Efforts to reduce a tax liability are the ideal competition a tax system needs. How the state combats such things is what is important – Dickie seems to be saying ‘if everyone just shrugs and pays up the system can then be made fairer*’

    If you’re sick of accountants finding loopholes and giving perfectly rational advice stop creating all the loopholes in the first place.

    If the first principles of the Treasury didn’t include playing politics with people’s income, livelihoods, families and private lives I bet you could simplify things enormously.

    * Whatever that means.

  2. “I’ve said before that I think Ritchie’s a Royalist…”

    That’s not what most people call him. Has too many letters, for a start…

  3. In Germany militarist expansionism wasn’t seen as a failed policy at the end of WW1: there were no tangible signs of defeat on the streets of Germany. Citizens could think that they were “stabbed in the back” and that if it weren’t for the enemy within, they’d have been doing fine and dandy. We (the Allies) refused to consider an armistice in WW2 because the German people had to see for themselves the destruction wrought by themselves on themselves.

    I’m coming round to the idea of a Labour victory at the next election being a good thing: the utter ruination of the country will demonstrate once and for all to the citizenry what damaging and dangerous people these are, and never again can people with such views be allowed the reins of power. In order to save England it will be necessary to destroy England first.

  4. Kay Tie :- No sign of deafeat on the streets of Germany after WW1? No unemployment? No riots? All those returned soldiers were employed and content?
    “It will be necessary to destroy England first” – from the outside view that has already happened.

  5. “No sign of deafeat on the streets of Germany after WW1? No unemployment? No riots? All those returned soldiers were employed and content?”

    No foreign soldiers on the streets, no occupation. Yes, unemployment and riots and discontent: “stabbed in the back by Jews at home”.

  6. Murphy is a twat.

    As a CPA, if I make my first duty to “support tax systems” – by which Murphy means (of course) that I should refuse to provide my paying clients those professional services allowing them to legally minimize their taxes – I am violating my professional code of ethics, my professional code of conduct and my professional duty to my clients.

    My duty to “support tax systems” goes only as far as ensuring my clients comply with the law. Anything beyond that is an unapproved substitution of my judgment for that of my client’s, which is prohibited, unethical conduct.

    I don’t know what is demanded of Chartered Accountants with relation to a profession’s duty to one’s clients, but I cannot imagine it varies much from what is demanded of me.

    I can only assume (or at least hope) that 99.9% of CAs view Murphy’s actions and opinions with sort of contempt that is bred of being a competent professional being hectored by an incompetent busybody.

    Again, he’s a twat.

  7. It’s time professional people changed their tune: their duty is to support tax systems – not undermine them.

    Well, that would bugger Mr Tessa Jowell’s personal business model then wouldn’t it. And the pension plans of 600 and something Westminster workers*.

    On a broader note: As I never cease to remind people like Richie, what he calls “undermining the tax system” is actually nothing of the sort. The provisions in the tax code that allow people to minimise their bill were put there by the democratically elected government and approved by the democratically elected representatives of the people. In other words they must be the democratic will of the people** and to not make use of them would be to undermine the tax system.

    Now, if Richie could just get his head around this, I’m sure he’d find he didn’t worry half as much as he seems to do at the moment.

    *They may not be professionals in the truest sense but they do claim they are worth a salary commensurate with that of professionals

    **Either that or we have to face the fact the democratically elected government and the democratically elected representatives of the people are complete idiots and passed into law a tax code that fails to achieve their democratic objectives. In which case they should be fired.

  8. I don’t think Murphy understands that the taxman often undermines the tax system by taking a position that is contrary to law. That is the effect of a court decision supporting the taxpayer – that the taxman was undermining the tax system.

    Bad, bad, taxman.

    Or does Murphy suggest the import of a pro-taxpayer court ruling is: “That taxpayer was clearly undermining the tax system but, hee, hee, hee, we’ll let him keep the loot anyway.” I don’t think much of lawyers or judges, but I doubt that even they do that.

    Perhaps Murphy should take up surfing and renounce accounting, for which he clearly has no aptitude. “Murph the Surf” is a much better nickname that “twat”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *