Is it possible to explain the essence of such complex things clearly – why yes of course it is – and that is a skill that some are able to exploit to make a living from.

The guardian tesco thing seemed to be more about the demonisation of tax avoidance and tax planning that Gordon and his mob are trying to engineer – tesco was simply trying to manage the political risk. the guardian was hoist by its own hypocracy – quite right to. I don't buy that the guardian did not have the expertise – sounds like no more than a rather pathetic excuse.

In fact most tax planning schemes are equally hard to follow. This includes those punted at owner managers, company directors, property developers and everyone else keen to reduce their liability to IHT, NICs, CGT and SDLT. As a result the promoters of such schemes will often tap into the taxpayer's greed and suggest that their accountant is 'only' a general practitioner and 'this is all a bit beyond what they're used to really'. They suggest that accountants who don't follow them should simply trust the promoters. Occasionally the lure of a healthy commission takes over…..

As I have pointed out elsewhere this is a dangerous route for any accountant to follow. Many prefer to either:
a) only work with genuinely independent and objective tax specialists; or
b) NOT get involved in promoting abusive avoidance schemes to their clients.

Either approach is justifiable. The professional bodies discourage their members from advising on matters that are outside of their comfort zones. Contrary to the impression given by some promoters, an accountant will never be found negligent for failing to tell clients about the availability of sophisticated schemes he doesn't understand. And there is no obligation on him to devote time and effort trying to work them out either.

Interestingly enough, the Star is run according to the wishes of its founder's will… details nicely summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Star#Atkinso…

The essence? That Rusbridger and his journalists did an appalling job on that story. When I blogged it when it came out I had comments within the hour telling me that they'd ballsed it up. It really isn't that the story was that complicated. It was those reporting it didn't have the first clue.

The importance of the topic? I make my living (or at least a decent chunk of it) writing about economics, taxes and the rest of it. Sure I know how important it is. Which is precisely why I'd like to see people doing it rather better. A few pieces I'd like to see in, say, The Guardian. What is tax incidence and what is the incidence of corporation tax? Why are we making people who earn minimum wage pay income tax? Richard Murphy's missing billions and the tax gap. Why aren't people prepared to point out his logical error? That a difference between headline rate and effective rate does not mean either avoidance or evasion: it can (and certainly does in part) mean that people are using the allowances that Parliament has expressly created for them to use.

Picture this. What would one of your actions be if you were working for a large media organisation researching a tax story? One of mine would be to go to that media organisations internal tax accountants and ask, "Err, have I got this right?". As an editor I'd certainly ask the in house boffins to look it over. Neither happened. This isn't "problems of reporting" this is "problems with reporters and editors."

When taxpayers see John Prescott with two Jaguars, when politicians seem to do nothing but call each other names, that's enough to make anyone say, "What am I paying tax for?"

Some of my fellow Quakers choose to withhold the portion of their tax that will be spent on defence. I haven't chosen to do that. But I do think that if "the man in the street" could have more say in how taxpayers' money is spent, there might be less tax avoidance.

M

I am only too well aware that when a person takes a position, others will seek to chop it down and the prime weapon is one that seeks to distract through arguments that deflect. Unfortunately, that axe usually often shows itself to be somewhat blunt, tainted as it often is with its own flavour of hypocrisy.

Even so, the counter discussion around big/small/whatever government is not something from which I would shirk. Check what I've had to say in the past about HMRC BS, ineptitude etc.

Better still, check Tony Collins at CW and his 10+ year campaign on government IT project failures, a topic around which I have some knowledge.

However, I would support your campaign to bring to wider public attention the complexities of modern taxation. It is a fascinating topic and one that would be eye-opening to many.

You should be careful, though… don't assume everybody will reach the same conclusions as you. The more people hear about tax avoidance, the more they are reminded about taxation in general – and its flip-side, government spending… truly an area deserving of greater scrutiny.

I will admit I have no insight into Rusbridger's mind but I am prepared to take at face value what I interpret as a fair exercise in explaining just how hard it is to get facts together in a form we can all understand. As Rusbridger said: (paraphrased for this purpose) expertise needs to be finely honed in order to dissect let alone comprehend the reality of tax avoidance.

As a person who once made a handsome living that way I know only too well of which he speaks.