The History of Legal Professional Privilege and its Role in Tax Advice \nby Tax Professionals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contends that the taxpayers' right to confidentiality plays a pivotal role in enabling taxpayers to be candid in consultations with their tax adviser, and that this right should attract equal protection notwithstanding the professional classification of the tax adviser. The emphasis is on balancing the revenue authorities' power to enable the collection of necessary revenue as efficiently and equitably as possible with the need to protect the taxpayer from unnecessary intrusion. The paper outlines the historical development of legal professional privilege, from the Elizabethan concept of confidentiality to the traditional privilege as the right of the client in a complex legal system. A number of rationales for the privilege are discussed and the applicability of the rationales to tax accountants is explored. Finally it outlines the current state of play of legal professional privilege in the tax arenas of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it