Tax Avoidance

Tax avoidance has become a massive topic of discussion over the past few years, given the current global economic conditions and the cuts to the public sector by the government as a result. This led to increased anger from the public who perceive avoidance by many of the country’s wealthiest people in a time of austerity as greed. Perhaps the most notable demonstration of this anger can be seen in the actions of the group UK Uncut, who for the past year have been organising protests at shops owned by retail tycoon Philip Green who, as the poster boy for tax avoidance, paid a £1.2 billion dividend to his Monaco-resident wife.

In R v. Potisk (1973) The Police charged Potisk with larceny after he was given $2895.17 instead of $1233.23 by a bank teller when exchanging the USD currency and was found not guilty by the supreme court after the judge ruled that it is was not larceny and he was given the money although he was being dishonest. The law is effective in determining justice in this case because he didn't take the money without consent, he was being dishonest and was found not guilty because the judge and evidence proved he committed no econmoic offence. When it comes to white-collar crimes tax evasion is the most common of the three offences (Insider trading, tax evasion and computer crimes). These three offences have different sentences depending on the severeity of the crime but have a minimum of 8 years

Paying Taxes - Taxes are money taken from citizens that is used to fund the nation. Federal, state, local governments collect taxes from the citizens to be able to keep those governments and schools running, hiring police officers and firefighters to protect, and transportation (roads, trains, buses). If a citizen was to avoid paying taxes, they could possibly face jail time or monumental fines.

Before going on with the details of this process, it is important that you have a clear understanding of illegal or unacceptable practices to be avoided in your search to lower taxes. If you are not careful, you could already be charged with tax evasion without you knowing it.

HMRC. Interest would be due on late payment of tax but penalties would be extremely unlikely due to full disclosure to

This scenario demonstrates the motive to purchase personal expenses and hide small revenues and this ultimately results in a higher expense value, gaining a favourable tax return. Examples within the scenario were buying a sports car, or paying for a trip to Hawaii which are clear violations of the Business Entity Concept. This principles states that a business must be considered a separate entity from the person, and all of its financial matters should be recorded separately from one’s own. This act is seen as an unacceptable behaviour since the business is cheating the government, and keeping the money that could have been used to better the community in addition to violating common accounting standards.

In his article “Owe The IRS Money? Here Are Your Options,” Matthew Frankel discusses your options if you have unpaid taxes. The extended tax deadline is October 15th and many people may have unpaid taxes, even if an individual filed an extension the tax was still due on April 18th so it is better to pay sooner rather than later since interest and penalties are charged retroactively starting when they were due. One option if you are unable to pay the full amount of taxes is to apply for additional time up to 120 days, if the 120 days is not long enough another option is to apply for an installment plan. Finally, you have the options of asking the IRS to delay collection of your tax debt, or, if you are able to prove your inability to pay the

If you prepare your own taxes, what software do you use? How long does it take you?

In order for the reader to fully comprehend what the tax evasion argument is and how alternative possibility are not required for responsibility, it is

The United States economy is heading for one of the biggest crashes since 2008. With increased globalization, businesses in America have adapted and grown considerably, but not necessarily for the better. In particular, there are two areas in which certain businesses operate that are risking an unsustainable U.S. economy. That is to say through devious tax avoidance schemes businesses have amassed large offshore stockpiles, which are exempt from U.S. tax deductions. Furthermore, Wall Street has grown exponentially, while increasing volatility in the economy. These two problems beg the question if either are sustainable, and if not, what type of solutions could possibly be implemented, to secure a prosperous United States economy.

Reforming the US tax code into a document a fraction of its current size would help elevate this type of abuse and make it more difficult for people to misuse its content for their own personal agenda. Rogue agents are not the only ones who abuse this monstrosity, the more tax savvy a filer is, the better they are at tax avoidance with so many area to benefit. Whereas a less proficient tax filer or one who cannot afford a professional to prepare their taxes are likely to lose out on deductions or credits they may have otherwise been able to claim had they known about them. Also, with so many parts to the tax code coupled with the number of tax filers, it is impossible to audit are tax returns filed by the shrinking size of the Internal Revenue Service employees. This allows for more criminals to commit fraud in their filings.

Fourth, use of the vague phrase “tax advice”, coupled with the lack of any statutory definition of such phrase leads to disputes between parties as to what constitutes “tax advice.” Case law is replete with examples of parties claiming communications contained “tax advice” merely because tax issues were discussed. If courts have interpreted “tax advice” to be a narrow definition, the statute should be amended to avoid further

Tax fraud is the major problem in the country we live in today. Every second of the day you will find someone committing these illegal activities. This is affecting the economy. Think about the use of the taxes we pay are being use in the economy. In times of a fire or a robbery who do we call? That’s right, we call 911. Without taxes these wouldn’t be available for us. We can also think about the road and highway that get us to our destination in a flash, we have our taxes to thank for this. People will just still your identity and social security number just to commit t tax fraud on you. This can affect the community in many ways. First the economy will drop then businesses will stop making profit. Now this is bad for employer, because companies

KPMG was one of the biggest accounting firms in the 90’s that with a lucrative end, would serve wealthy companies using forged revenues in order to avoid taxes. The accountants that worked for the firm were expected to meet certain quotas. Consequently, instead of trying to run an honest business they were trying to maximize the sales using all kinds of dishonest marketing approaches. KPMG employees used foreign banks as well as bogus law firm statements to preserve a legitimate business running. This accounting firm manipulated financial data of clients, costing the internal revenue service over 2.5 billion in lost tax revenue

The idea that morally dubious goals may be legitimate inside capitalism will be discussed in light of a tax avoidance case study. Apple, a multinational technology company, has avoided paying its fair amount of income tax for years. This paper will consider the structural embeddedness of Apple’s legitimised goal—the maximisation of profit—through the ‘Double Irish Dutch sandwich’ tax haven model. Durkheim’s theory of collective conscience was used in explaining the legitimisation of the company’s profits-driven goal, and how its amorality becomes apparent outside the economical sphere. This paper will also discuss the interconnected nature of the harm and benefits in the deal made between Ireland and Apple. The association between legitimations of Apple’s conduct and its socially challenging behaviour has been analysed to be ambiguous in the letter of the law. The conclusion will shed light on the morally grey area of a company’s responsibility to its shareholders versus the needs of the community.