Ritchie on the Edge
Posted by Christie Malry on July 15, 2011 at 8:52 pm
The Edge, the peculiarly-monikered guitarist for U2, claims that Ireland is happy with U2's tax affairs. This does not meet with Ritchie's approval:
Oh dear, he still doesn’t get it, does he?
Legality is not morality. U2s arrangements may be legal – in which case the Irish government may accept them. But they stink when this band demands action for the poorest countries in the world who suffer from abuse orchestrated through structures similar to those this band uses.
Oh dear, Ritchie doesn't get it, does he?
There are three levels of tax behaviour. In decreasing levels of turpitude, they are: tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax compliance.
Now, we know that U2 aren't evading tax. Because, if they were, the Irish government would have come down on them like a tonne of bricks. And The Edge certainly could not claim that the Irish government had no problem with their tax affairs.
We also know that they're not avoiding tax. Because, if they were, The Edge would not be able to claim that the Irish government had no problem with their tax affairs. Ireland, in common with most advanced economies, has anti-avoidance rules which kick in when individuals try to exploit loopholes to their own advantage. At a minimum, we would have seen several tax investigations which, had they failed, would have been followed up with legislative changes to close tax loopholes and increase the government's tax take.
So, the only remaining option is that U2's tax affairs are tax compliant.
Note that the decision as to whether tax affairs are evasion, avoidance or compliant lies with the tax authorities alone. We do not allow individuals to make this decision on behalf of the tax authority. Parliament sets the laws, the tax authority then decides which circumstances to challenge in the courts, and it's the courts who decide how the tax law should be applied.
So Ritchie can jump up and down all he likes. If the Irish government aren't suing U2 then it's not avoidance: their affairs are compliant.
Love his comments. Legal? Thats what the law requires.
Moral? Sorry, thats individual. What is moral to one person isn't necessarily moral to another.
One person may say that drinking is immoral, another may say its fine. Here in this country we allow drinking yet you don't hear too many saying drinking isn't moral and therefore should be stopped entirely.
If an individual, a band, or a company pays exactly what the law requires, thats it as far as governments, departments and the courts are concerned. Just a few sad individuals who demand money with menaces (pay more tax or we'll trash some other company's shop!(F&M)). Or demand from their own moral code that others should follow what they decide. Them - unelected, not given power by government, not accountable to others, just them. To decide.