82,853
edits
Tax lawyer: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|people|[[File:Tolleys Tax Handbook.jpg|thumb|300px|center|If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place.]]}}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 [[Chicken-licken|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 | 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 ninja]]s 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 [[ninja]]s<ref>Real Japanese ninjas, that is, not ironically labelled [[ISDA ninja|ISDA ninjas]] though, come to think of it, we [[ISDA ninja]]s are a bit weird too.</ref> 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 expert]]s, and ''all'' tax lawyers are [[tax ninja]]s. In formal logic this can be expressed as follows: | |||
:''(x)(TLx ⊃ SMEx ⊃ TNx)''<br> | |||
:Where: | |||
:x = Any person | |||
:TL = Tax lawyer | |||
:SME = [[Subject matter expert]]; and <br> | |||
: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, to the laity, nothing in it makes any sense in any circumstances however hard they can bear to look at it — may indicate, in the alternative, that either: <br> | |||
(i) Any understanding of tax law requires [[ninja|ninjery]] so ineffable it cannot be apprehended, much less appreciated. by any lesser mind; ''ergo'' tax expertise is somehow Godly and pure; or <br> | |||
(ii) Tax law is a total shower and anyone who claims expertise in it is an outright charlatan. In this view there is no God; to the contrary, when we hold tax considerations in contemplation we are not just ''close'' to the [[abyss]] that yawns away below our [[Elephants and turtles|turtles]], but staring directly ''at'' it. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Recharacterisation]] | *[[Recharacterisation]] | ||
*[[Chicken-licken]] | *[[Chicken-licken]] | ||
*[[Ninja]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{c|Ninjas}} | |||