Tax lawyer: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
===Archetype congruity===
===Archetype congruity===
In a rare example of what we call “archetype congruity”, ''all'' tax lawyers are [[subject matter expert]]s, and ''all'' tax lawyers are [[tax ninja]]s. In formal logic this can be expressed as follows:
In a rare example of what we call “archetype congruity”, ''all'' tax lawyers are [[subject matter expert]]s, and ''all'' tax lawyers are [[tax ninja]]s. In formal logic this can be expressed as follows:
''{{quote|(x)(TLx ⊃ SMEx  ⊃  TNx)<br>
:''(x)(TLx ⊃ SMEx  ⊃  TNx)''<br>
Where:
:Where:
:x = Any person
:TL = Tax lawyer
:TL = Tax lawyer
:SME = [[Subject matter expert]]; and <br>
:SME = [[Subject matter expert]]; and <br>
:TN= [[Tax ninja]].}}''
:TN= [[Tax ninja]].''


This is because they necessarily are in fact, but because they necessarily are ''as far as anyone else can tell''. For no-one who ''isn’t'' a tax lawyer can bear the prospect of getting close enough to the topic to know whether a self-professed tax expert knows what she is talking about and, as such, there is no independent means of determining what a given tax position is other than by asking a tax lawyer — any tax lawyer — to tell you, and thereafter that answer cannot be gainsaid.
This is because they necessarily are in fact, but because they necessarily are ''as far as anyone else can tell''. For no-one who ''isn’t'' a tax lawyer can bear the prospect of getting close enough to the topic to know whether a self-professed tax expert knows what she is talking about and, as such, there is no independent means of determining what a given tax position is other than by asking a tax lawyer — any tax lawyer — to tell you, and thereafter that answer cannot be gainsaid.

Revision as of 14:35, 2 June 2021

People Anatomy™
A spotter’s guide to the men and women of finance.
If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place.
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

A friend of chicken licken, as the saying goes. These folk lie awake at night fantasising about Tolley’s Tax Handbook, and worry that excise might be retrospectively levied on equity trades in India and that the IRS might recharacterise equity swaps as disguised cash transactions. Either of these things might happen, of course, just like the sky might fall in on our heads.

Now as you all know the Jolly Contrarian doesn’t like to generalise, but — okay, okay, the JC loves to generalise, I admit it — but, tax ninjas really are, uniformly, and consistently, a bit weird. But weird in a good way. They are weird so we don’t have to be. They’re weird in the same way all ninjas[1] are a bit weird — that any people who have devoted their lives to the selfless pursuit of any kind of esoteric knowledge are a bit weird. It takes a weird sort of personality to devote your life to imputation credits and so on, after all.

Archetype congruity

In a rare example of what we call “archetype congruity”, all tax lawyers are subject matter experts, and all tax lawyers are tax ninjas. In formal logic this can be expressed as follows:

(x)(TLx ⊃ SMEx ⊃ TNx)
Where:
x = Any person
TL = Tax lawyer
SME = Subject matter expert; and
TN= Tax ninja.

This is because they necessarily are in fact, but because they necessarily are as far as anyone else can tell. For no-one who isn’t a tax lawyer can bear the prospect of getting close enough to the topic to know whether a self-professed tax expert knows what she is talking about and, as such, there is no independent means of determining what a given tax position is other than by asking a tax lawyer — any tax lawyer — to tell you, and thereafter that answer cannot be gainsaid.

The famous counter-intuitivity of tax law — how nothing seems to make any sense to the laity, however hard they can bear to look at it — is indicative, in the alternative, of the following facts:

(i) any understanding of tax law requires an ineffable ninjadom that cannot be apprehended, much less appreciated by anyone else; ergo tax expertise is somehow Godly and pure; or
(ii) tax law is an total shower and anyone who claims expertise in tax matters is an outright charlatan. There is no God; to the contrary we are not just close to the abyss that yawns away below the turtles, but staring directly at it.

See also

References

  1. Real Japanese ninjas, that is, not ironically labelled ISDA ninjas though, come to think of it, we ISDA ninjas are a bit weird too.