The morality and tax avoidance: A sentiment and position taking analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the moral and legal underpinnings of corporate tax avoidance. Cast in terms of a totemic symbol that brand tax avoidance as within the purview of the law, the paper invokes the attributional frames of the new sociology of morality to examine the position of both the moral advocates and the amoral critics of aggressive tax avoidance. The paper uses the United Kingdom as a jurisdiction where complex tax planning by tax advisors serves as a measure of protection for corporations who may have already conceived that they are paying too much tax. Data for the paper came from semi-structured interviews conducted with tax accountants, consultants, parliamentarians, and government officials. To supplement the interviews, data from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards were collected and analyzed to provide useful insights. The findings reveal that through effective tax planning, companies can reduce the present values of future tax payments. Given the singular justification of their actions within the contours of the tax rules, the moral culpability of organized tax avoidance is minimized, with very little liability attached. Tax avoidance is a morally charged area that is slowly drifting away from conventional social norms of what is right or wrong. It is hard not to see those in charge of tax regulation not using the findings of this paper to provide a more nuanced understanding of the intractable problems associated with corporate tax avoidance and use it as a reference point for regulatory reforms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".