"Deprived of meaningful work,
men and women lose their reason for existence; they go stark, raving mad."
-
Feodor Dostoevsky(Russian, 1821-1881)
Word for the day
Ennui (n)
A feeling of utter weariness
and discontent resulting from satiety or lack of interest; boredom:
(Source: Dictionary.com)
Malice towards
none
What is morality and what is
legality; and why should they cohabit; and how could morality be tangent on the
legality.
True and fair
Someone raised a very pertinent question - should driving below speed
limit be equivalent to driving above speed from viewpoint of the legality of
the action?
In a scenario when everyone is driving at the stipulated speed
limit, the safety of the vehicles and people riding in those vehicles would be
endangered in equal proportion if someone decides to drive either below or over
the stipulated limit.
A supplementary question that could arise out of this inquisition
is - whether something done (slow driving) to avoid being caught in an unlawful
act (fast driving) should be equally culpable as the unlawful act itself?
After an annoying argument with myself, I concluded that driving
slower than the flow of the traffic is perhaps more perilous to the safety of
other people than the fast driving. Because slow driver induces the trailing
drivers to jump the lane and overtake his/her vehicle and in the process
creates multiple chances of occurrence of an accident. Whereas the fast driver
just himself jumps the lane and creates just one chance of an accident, should
he lose the control of his vehicle.
I know it will make me hugely unpopular with many tax payers, but
I find it very pertinent to extrapolate this logic to the debate of tax
avoidance vs. tax planning (saving).
(a) A public company taking
business decision based primarily on tax saving considerations should be
equally culpable as the company that avoids paying due taxes. For example, a
film producing company investing in a windmill!
(b) The tax concessions
provided by the government for inducing investment in a specific geographical
location, even though not necessarily in the best interest of the minority
shareholders also need to be evaluated by the same yardstick.
Why the minority shareholders of a company (whose consent is not
sought for making substantial investments) should be burdened with the
obligation of aiding the development of a backward region?
Many projects that were primarily conceived to take advantage of
backward area have become unviable due to poor infrastructure, higher
operational cost, etc. The losses are suffered by the lenders, ancillary
investors, families of the people rendered unemployed,
(c) Bonus stripping is a
popular accounting method that is used extensively for "tax
planning".
The implications are - (i) investors are induced to invest in a
business, they might normally not have done but for tax saving; (ii) government
loses on revenue with no direct or indirect benefit at all; (iii) it does not
add any economic value to the issuer company or its existing shareholders.
Why then the government should allow this blatant tool of tax
avoidance in the garb of tax planning?
No comments:
Post a Comment