82,882
edits
Tax lawyer: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{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]]. | {{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. | ||
In a rare example of | ===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: | |||
''{{quote|(x)(TLx ⊃ SMEx ⊃ TNx)<br> | |||
Where: | |||
: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 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: <br> | 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: <br> | ||