I read something in the Times today about a judge deciding that an accountant advising his client on domicile and residence ought to know what they’re talking about or refer the client to someone else.
I would post a link to the judgement but I haven’t bothered reading it so neither should you.I think it’s pretty safe to say I know exactly what went on. I’m sure it is perfectly professional and ethical for me to publicly drum up an ill-informed mob to harangue any judge who might hear an appeal.
After all, I am an expert on taxes, so there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be an expert on negligence law too.
The judge ruled that if the accountants did not set up and implement a specific tax avoidance scheme of the judge’s choice on behalf of their client five seconds after they realised he was not domiciled in the UK, they were negligent.Or something like that.
And the judge decided that they should have set up a Bearer Warrant Scheme. I used to sell those, you know. It was all gobbledegook to me then and still is now.
So because the accountants hadn’t considered which avoidance scheme a judge in a negligence hearing might choose as his favourite, they were considered to be negligent.
Anyway, that’s probably what happened. So being a professional and ethical tax (and now negligence) expert, I decided to comment on it without actually doing any research or knowing what I am talking about.
Which is what the defendant did in this case. So they must be innocent!
The Times did quote me, though they did not mention my book:
Murphy Richards, Messiah of Researches for Taxes UK, said: “The time has come for the Government to protect ethical accountants such as myself. David Gauke came round my house last night and told me to sell my books through Amazon and Google to avoid taxes. Luckily I already do, but I am scared that next time he might make me buy my cardigans from Top Shop.”
They have heavily edited my quote to remove the titles of the books. I cannot stand it when people moderate my comments!