Is it "Morally Wrong" for a Barrister to defend a Client he knows is guilty?
No, he works within the Law to ensure the best result for the Defendant. Sound familiar?

The question of 'morals' is an interesting topic that the politicians have brought to the fore. Given that they were and may still be fiddling their expenses they appear to have left both morals and legality to one side. Is it a case of one rule for them and one for the rest? I personally feel operating within the law is moral. Claiming false allowances, benefits and sick pay is not. Time to target the benefit fraudsters and their own 'moral' doings before they tackle the 'law abiding'

If an IFA does not provide legally correct advice about minimising tax liabilities, then surely the client would have grounds for redress. The only caveat would be to preface their advice with warnings about the threat of retrospective advice. I speak as one who finds the likes of Philip Green, Ebay, Northern & Shell (aka Express newspapers), as morally repugnant. Does anyone actually read the Express, as they have no moral authority.

Retrospective legislation is the hallmark of lazy government.

Our legislators are expected to draft laws properly in the first place. They may, of course, subsequently amend the legislation to cover future behaviour, but they have no natural right to penalise citizens who have operated within the law in the past.

Retrospective legislation is the road to tyranny!

I did a quick straw poll in the office and of the 10 advisers not one writes dodgey tax avoidance business, on that basis there a re alot out there making up the. From my perspective I would be scared witless that a case that made good money cost us our PI cover!
PeterIFA

So it would appear that now the battle rages between the 'weasels' and the idiots'! So because someone other than himself does not volunteer to underwrite the profligate spending of irresponsible politicians, they must by definition be immoral eh? No matter whatever his opinion, the ‘dues’ that he considers belong to society are no other than those that are those specifically defined by law. The claim for and payment of tax has never been and never will have a moral component. It is merely the exploitation of those competent to provide for themselves by those who are not. That this latter group take it as their ‘right’ to enjoy the fruits of others labours, could just as easily be adopted as a justification for th

The last thing both recent Governments should be doing is preaching to us about morality. Dipping their hands in our pockets to fund the Money Advice Service and FSCS when we have no say in the matter is not morally justifiable.

I think you will find that 'Tax Accountants' are the ones who manipulate the HMRC rules. Time to stop blaming IFA's for all & look at others. If these scemes did not exist then IFA's could not use! What are HMRC doing allowing them if that's the case. However it is a bit rich for the PM or any MP to preach about Morals!

Within the law is all we have to consider in my opinion as who am I to judge another mans morals and I do not think the Government will apply wholesale retrospective tax changes as the result would be widespread confusion and how could people and business plan their Tax and Business affiars if the goal posts constantly changed. Fact is Jimmy Carr did nothing wrong or illegal and before messers Cameron and Osbourne start shouting and passing comment on the moral rights of his action they should remember that members of the Cabinet and their families have quite legally been using Tax Avoidence schemes for decades to escape IHT and Personal Tax. Instead of the revenue highlighting certain high profile left wing individuals and other low lying fruit, perhaps they should look at the major companies who avoid Billions of pounds in tax which the revenue and the government seemingly happy to turn a blind eye. Tax avoidence has been around for centuries and is I think impossible to stop if the tax system was simpler and fairer then perhaps people wouldnt feel that they have to look at ways around it.

I have payed for financial advice and, perhaps naively assume that the 'experts' have an understanding of what is going on in finance and can do a much better job than I could in avoiding the worst losses. However, this has not proved to be the case and the huge instabilities and swings have often caught the markets unawares. This suggests to me that advisers don't understand which I consider morally wrong and incompetent. If you could rely on advisers people beyond a certain worth would not have to worry about trying to find ways of avoiding tax!

To be frank, this comes down to risk again. Legislative risk is a very big risk indeed as if the tax laws change and are applied retrospectively then the client could suffer large losses.

This is why the regulators focus on issues such as volatility being the main indicator of risk is, in my view, not very helpful.

You've got to do things that are morally correct. In that way you protect yourself against legislative risk and again playing the part of that Frank fellow; there are plenty of ways to avoid tax legally and ethically. You may pay a little more tax than the guy down the road with the dodgy offshore trust, but there is less risk as concerns being asked to pay back all the tax you've dodged!

Everyone uses tax avoidance schemes, I get all my clients to do an ISA and on some occasions get them to place investments in the spouses name as she is a non tax payer rather than joint names. What is OK and whats not!!? If its legal then its OK, or if you are a millionaire you are not allowed to plan you have to have all of your money in taxed investments!

How can a government which earns tax from deadly drugs (fags and booze) claim the moral high ground?

According to the PM it appears that legaility of the issue is no longer relevant!

Mr Prime Minister wants to look closer to home for the "expenses Scandal within his own government before calling the kettle sooty arse"

This reminds me of two old proverbs;

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Moderation in everything, including moderation.