Search

This article joins a somewhat nascent, but growing, body of scholarship addressing the ethical obligation to pay tax. The analysis is grounded to the ethical duty to obey law generally and highlights two competing orientations to statutory interpretation. The norms of self-interested advocacy suggest that tax planners should assert that interpretation that will generate the most wealth for the client. The norms of professional advising, by contrast, direct the tax planner to interpret tax law with reference to plain meaning, interpretive maxims, court precedents, and legislative purpose. When the two orientations differ, the ethical duty to obey law requires the tax planner to recommend, and for the taxpayer to follow, the latter view. Case studies drawn from a Louisiana sales tax avoidance scheme and from Google’s profit-shifting activities illustrate the ethical issues incumbent in tax interpretation.

This study explores the legal and ethical issues associated with contract pricing. In particular, it focuses on a set of legal precedents which have addressed the enforceability of allegedly “unfair” contract prices. Traditionally, the common law has emphasized the consent of the parties. If the parties consented to a given price; it is presumptively fair and enforceable. The cases reviewed in this study, however, seem to draw upon alternative moral conceptions of fairness not normally associated with the common law. The analysis begins by distinguishing the traditional legal conception of fairness from alternative moral conceptions. The cases are then read with a critical eye so as to tease out the underlying principles which best explain them. The analysis illustrates that, notwithstanding judicial rhetoric to the contrary, the courts continue to employ the traditional legal notion of fairness, to the exclusion of alternative moral concerns. The study clarifies an otherwise murky area of the law and illustrates that the legal meaning of fairness differs greatly from the moral one.