I just posted the following comment on Alex Hawkes' Accountancy Age blog regarding Tesco's decision to sue The Guardian for libel over its accusations of tax avoidance.
"What an interesting situation.
The Guardian has effectively conflated two issues. The first is whether tax avoidance is immoral and unethical, and the second is whether Tesco has engaged in it. The first question has been in the public domain so long now that one is tired of hearing about it. The second was a confidential matter between Tesco and HMRC before the Guardian journalists stuck their big noses in it.
It seems that we have reached a stage where the rhetoric of journalists, fuelled by their constant pursuit of scandal and inspired by the tendentious writings of self-appointed experts like Richard Murphy, Prem Sikka and their like, has been so successful in persuading the public that tax avoidance is immoral and unethical that merely to state that someone is a tax avoider is seen as libellous if untrue.
I, for one, would love to see the Courts take a view on whether tax avoidance is immoral or unethical as journalists like Alex Hawkes so frequently opine. I would be utterly astonished if any Court found that it was, irrespective of what the journalists have to say.
I rather like Tesco's approach to this case. If the Guardian argues successfully that their article is not defamatory, then Tesco loses their case but regains the moral high ground. If the article is defamatory if untrue, the Guardian will have to show that it got its facts right in order to win, and only Tesco can know whether they have.
I am particularly looking forward to the day that the Guardian's legal advisers are forced to argue that what they have said about Tesco is not defamatory because there is in fact nothing at all unethical or immoral about tax avoidance!"
1 comment:
Maybe The Guardian would benefit from being reminded of this little story explaining the difference between Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance...
“I live in Alexandria Virginia. Near the Supreme Court Chambers is a toll bridge across the Potomac. When in a rush, I pay the quarter toll and get home early. However, I usually drive outside the downtown section of the city and cross the Potomac on a free bridge.
This bridge was placed outside the downtown Washington, DC area to serve a useful social service, getting drivers to drive the extra mile and to help alleviate congestion during rush hour.
If I went over the toll bridge and through the barrier without paying the toll, I would be committing tax evasion.
If, however, I drive the extra mile outside the city of Washington to the free bridge, I am using a legitimate, logical, and suitable method of tax
avoidance, and I am performing a useful social service by doing so.
For my tax evasion, I should be punished. For my tax avoidance, I should be commended.
The tragedy of life today is that so few people know that the free bridge even exists.”
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE LOUIS D.
BRANDEIS (1916-1939)
Post a Comment