In the first of his regular commentaries, Richard Murphy provides an introduction to the Expert Eye column and indicates what readers can expect in his forthcoming contributions. 

Richard Murphy

More important, for me, is that there must be good reason for accepting the invitation. It is, after all, something of an assumption that you might have sufficient to say on a regular basis to keep a bunch of informed and critical readers engaged, even if they do not agree with a word you say.

I have been writing about tax for twenty three years now. Since the late 1980s I have written, some might say persistently, on themes that relate to the way tax systems work. By and large I avoid deeply technical issues. That’s not because they do not interest me: they do. They must interest any tax practitioner. But, as a practitioner I have always been a generalist. That is, I am  someone who has guided their clients through a wide range of issues, being competent (I hope) at most, but having sufficient knowledge to know when I am out of my depth, when technical expertise is needed and who I should call for help.

I’m proud of that track record. I have never apologised for being a generalist although society at large has moved away from considering that role as important as that of the super specialist. My reason is simple: whilst I do not for one moment doubt the merit of some specialising, the people who actually have to engage with the tax system do not do so from choice. Nor do they have the expertise to identify their needs. What most of them need are tax advisers who can engage with them as non-specialists, who can understand quite a lot about their life outside taxation and yet who know enough not just about individual taxes but about the way those taxes interact with each other and with the real life that those people pursue. It so happens that as an entrepreneurial accountant who has run more than ten companies either as chairman, senior partner, CEO or finance director, I hope I can do this, at least for those in business.

Most tax practitioners, by number at least, probably fall into this category. They are working in smaller firms where meeting the holistic need of their clients with regard to a whole range of services is their priority, either alone or when working in close contact with their colleagues who deal with accounting, auditing, financial services and other issues. It’s these practitioners to whom this column is primarily addressed: the tax man or woman on the Clapham Omnibus if you like.

I do, however, hope it will also appeal to the super tax specialist, whether they work in practice, commerce, or dare I say it, for HM Revenue & Customs. There is good reason for having that hope: the super specialist has to realise that there is a world beyond taxation. I know that might, on occasion, be hard to comprehend. I do have to remind myself of it every now and again. Indeed, when someone asked me over lunch recently ‘why are you so interested in tax?’ my immediate (but unspoken) inclination was to say ‘Isn’t everyone?’

And of course, to some degree everyone is. The number of people now outside the tax net is so small that the issue inevitably concerns most people at some time or other. It’s not without reason that it’s been said that elections always revolve around ‘the economy, stupid’. And given that for many people rating how a government manages the economy entails an assessment of its taxation policy then this too is an area about which tax practitioners, specialist or otherwise, should be concerned.

It is most certainly on the agenda of issues to be tackled by this column. I trained as an economist before becoming an accountant, and many now think I practice economics more than accountancy. The fact that I am a visiting fellow in political economy at one university as well as being an external research fellow in taxation at another might fuel that confusion.

Some will also know that I have a very particular stance on some aspects of taxation. I do, however, write on those issues elsewhere. Whilst no one is free of their own biases and prejudices it is not my intent to cover those themes, at least in the same way, here. I will instead seek to address issues based on my experience of the economics and politics of taxation, mixed with the invaluable lesson from practice of what is possible.

Again, though, I would stress this comment is offered as a generalist and will certainly be without party political perspective, I hope. Just for the record though, I do meet politicians from all the UK’s major parties, and some of the smaller ones on a regular basis and offer my advice to any who ask without favour being granted or requested.

Most accountants do not seem to engage with the economic and political spheres in this way. As a result what I have found is that many practitioners when addressing the politics of tax suggest what no politician seeking a mandate could deliver. The art of politically possible change will, therefore, be another theme I will want to address.

But most of all, in the vibrant world of tax I will seek to pose questions, challenge perceptions, and promote understanding of the wider aspects of taxation and how they relate to the real working lives of those who have to make that system work, and those who have to comply with it in order to make payment of tax in the right place, in the right amount and at the right time, which is what our political masters ask that we do at the end of the day. At least occasionally I hope what I write might inform change by someone, somewhere.

If that happens my goal will have been achieved.

Article Added Friday, 04 July 2008 | 1554 Hits

Your attention is drawn to the disclaimer on this site, which applies to the content in this section.