Abstract

Professor Mitt Regan takes up Brad Wendel's suggestion that we have to distinguish the ethics of advocates from those which guide other forms of legal work, and proposes that the distinction be taken further. Legal advising can itself implicate different ethical positions. Regan concentrates on tax advisers, and argues that their work can, at times, legitimately require a partisan advocate's stance in the giving of tax advice or an impartial trustee's stance in ensuring that the spirit, as well as the letter, of tax law is honoured. Especially in the US, there are strong systemic justifications for treating the tax adviser as an advocate: the wide latitude that tax law gives the citizen when calculating tax liability, the hazards of accurate interpretation of the tax code, and the need for predictability in client arrangements suggesting that it is preferable to concentrate strictly on the letter of the law. So too, the tax adviser as trustee is informed by the importance of tax collection for ordinary government services, and by 'tax morale' and the community's confidence in the tax system generally. The bifurcation of ethical stances in tax advising is, as a consequence, a function of the 'conflicted regulation' of citizen taxpayers