Tax Minimization: An Ethical Task or an Unethical One?

This article discusses the ethical and legal aspects of tax minimization and its impact on stakeholders. It highlights that tax minimization is not unethical per se, but tax avoidance is. The article also discusses the utilitarian view and stakeholder theory to establish the ethicality of tax minimization. It concludes that tax minimization is ethical when done within the realms of legality and with the aim of maximizing benefits for stakeholders.

Business Ethics 2
In 2015, the world saw the documents covering the personal financial information of wealthy
public officials and individuals, which had been private till that time. Panama Papers involved
the leak of 11.5 million documents which covered the details of over 2 million offshore entities,
regarding their attorney client details and financial information (Harding, 2016). Some
documents even dated back to the 1970s. These were taken from Mossack Fonseca, the corporate
service provider, and the Panamanian law firm. Even though offshore business entities have the
legality to exists, some of the reporters highlighted that some of shell corporations of Mossack
Fonseca were being used for unlawful reasons, which included invasion of international
sanctions, fray and tax evasion. With Panama Papers, tax havens were in the news again
(Obermayer and Obermaier, 2016). They highlighted how the secretive companies were having
hidden beneficial owners, which included famous personalities. With this leak, a question was
raised on whether the tax minimisation schemes adopted by the multinational companies (MCSs)
were ethical, or were the activities involving tax havens an unethical task. Resulting from these
questions is the issue of government taking actions into such tax havens or tax minimisation
schemes, as being a legitimate conduct or a morally incorrect one. This discussion aims to
highlight that the tax minimisation is not an unethical task per se; it is the tax haven creation
which is the unethical aspect.
When it comes to the concepts like good governance, corporate social responsibility,
accountability and the like, it is expected from the companies that they would work towards the
needs of different stakeholders, instead of being focused on the shareholders only. This is
particularly stated in the stakeholder theory. In the attempts of good governance, the companies
attempt to minimize the tax liabilities which they have through the use of tax planning (Back,

Business Ethics 3
2013). This is done by using the mechanisms and the tools which are available, where the
particular focus is on exemptions, rebates, deductions, allowances, and the like. Tax planning has
to be seemed as a tax compliant behaviour. However, the issue is raised when the matters reach
the grey area which is between tax planning and tax avoidance. Even though tax avoidance is
legitimate, it is seen as an aggressive tool where it includes using the financial arrangements or
instruments which are not anticipated or intended by the regulatory department as being a mode
of taking the taxation benefit. An example of this is the tax havens where the tax is avoided by
bending the rules and regulations under the taxation system, particularly which is not unlawful,
as against tax evasion. It operates within the words of the law, but definitely not based on the
spirit of it (McGee, 2011).
Tax is seen as a social responsibility. This is what raises a question against the tax avoidance
schemes. A particular point raised in this regarding is the impact of government spending having
a negative impact over the daily lives of people. When such happens, how can the avoidance in
paying the fair share of taxes, of MNCs, taken to be a fair thing? This is just the systematic
avoidance of the tax by the rich people and the companies. This is a significant ethical issue as
avoiding payment of tax is basically avoiding the social obligation. However, when such
arguments are made, a key aspect which is forgotten is that the law permits the individuals and
companies to manage their tax, by investing or by using the lawful means. This is done to allow
the individuals to not be burdened by excessive taxation and to allow for flexibility. This is just
like a person managing their finances, in place of spending every hard earned penny. It is the
responsibility of the company directors to maximize the value for the shareholders and included
in this is minimizing the tax costs for the purpose of the increasing the value for shareholders,

Business Ethics 4
and this is done in the realms of legality. There are a number of taxes which the company pays to
contribute towards the economy, and by these payments, the contribution of businesses is made.
But this does not require them to not attempt to minimize the costs, be it in form of tax
minimization (McDonald, 2014).
To establish this viewpoint, the utilitarian view proves to be of help. This theory requires that for
an action to be ethical, it has to maximize the utility of such action. In other words, such actions
which result in the maximization of the benefit for the majority, that action would be ethical.
Where the companies chalk out their tax plans and strategize to minimize it, the utility for the
different stakeholders of the company is maximized, and this makes it an ethical task (Jonge,
2012). The problem is raised when the focus is shifted from the maximization of utility for the
public to the maximization of utility for self. This is something which is coupled with virtues like
greed and self-centredness and to blame it upon tax minimization is wrong (Melé, 2009). The
next point which is often raised against tax minimization being ethical is that the MNCs do not
pay a fair share when they indulge in minimizing tax. This is due to the notion that paying little
or no corporate tax, the companies do not contribute to the economy. This notion is out rightly
wrong as the companies anyway contribute towards the stakeholders. Again when the utilitarian
view is applied here, the company undertakes its activities for maximizing the utility of the
different stakeholder groups. Here, the stakeholder theory is also met. Thus, this point raised
against the tax minimisation is proved wrong (McGee, 2011).
There are not many individuals who do not make an attempt to minimize their corporate or
personal taxes (Zgheib, 2014). The problem is raised when the push is made in the ethical line
between avoidance and minimisation of tax. The key here is that the minimisation of tax is done

Business Ethics 5
based on law, and so is the tax avoidance. However, the former follows both the letter and spirit
of law, whilst the latter follows only the letter of law. Another important point which has to be
noticed here is that the fair share of tax cannot be defined. What the opponents define unethical
in tax minimization cannot be quantified. Different individuals have different viewpoints and
some may deem even the full payment of tax as not being the fair share of tax. The individuals
and businesses have to meet the legal obligations which define what the fair share of tax is.
Beyond it, the perceptions of individuals cannot be imposed on businesses to make something
ethical. Stating something as fair share of taxation is very subjective, inconsistent, unpredictable
and uncertain with regards to the law being fair. The individuals and businesses cannot be
expected to work on what is the fair share of taxation, as they have to put focus on other
important matters, having an impact on its stakeholders (McGee, 2011).
As has been stated from the very beginning of this discussion, tax minimization is not ethical. It
is the ethics of reducing the tax liabilities becoming problematic when these are adopted in an
aggressive manner for avoiding tax, by making use of the creative schemes, which the state did
not intend or authorize, where only the letter of law is abided. The Panama Papers have
thoroughly highlighted the tax avoidance and the ethics which underline this, in the mainstream
media. Panama Papers was not the sole thing highlighting the menace of tax avoidance and the
same had been done previously in Swiss/ HSBC leaks undertaken in 2015, and the more recent
ones, with Paradise Papers (Lord, 2018). All these have highlighted the ease with which the high
net worth individuals and companies recognize their income and wealth transnationally by using
the established global financial system by use of legal business structures and offshore financial
centres. The society has to bear the brunt of tax avoidance due to the tax avoidance resulting in

Business Ethics 6
increasing tax burdens on resident taxpayers, growing inequality, and the undermining of state of
legitimacy (McGee, 2011).
By focusing on tax minimisation, the stakeholders can be benefited, as the money saved by
carefully planning the tax, can be used to further the business and operations of the company,
which in turn results in the growth of the stakeholders. But when tax avoidance is undertaken, it
shifts the funds away from the public purse, which becomes difficult in the backdrop of
phenomenon with economic uncertainties and budgetary austerity, and also results in the social
fairness being undermined (McGee, 2011).
When the philosophical and historical view is taken, it is shown that tax evasion is ethical at
times, and other times, it is unethical. The view of tax evasion being ethical or ethical had been
detailed by Crowe (1944). Angelus of Clavisio (1494) highlighted that there was no ethical
obligation for paying the taxes where the government does not make use of the revenues
collected from the individuals, for a common good. Berardi (1898) denied the moral duty of
paying taxes where perjury or lying was involved. Genicot (1927) accepted that there were
justified grounds to not pay the full amount of tax as the full payment would become unfair on
the taxpayer. This was stemmed from the fact that the wicked men paid lesser tax in comparison
to the conscientious men. Crolly (1877) supported the stance that the payment of taxation is not
required till such time where the evasion would end in violence. Lehmkuhl (1902) supported the
position that evading tax was unethical where the non-evaders had to pay a higher tax due to
these reasons. So the moral duty of the taxpayer was towards others, in place of the government.
Davis (1938) contrasted this view by stating that where the honest taxpayer was required to take

Business Ethics 7
up the slack and to pay high tax for evasion of others, it would be unfair. The literature is thus,
scattered on this issue (McGee, 2006).
To bring clarity to this matter, there is a need to consider this situation: what if the person lies in
high tax bracket and this allows the government to take over 90% of the marginal income of such
person; whilst the government takes a lesser percent from the low income earning groups. This
scenario has the individuals being treated as a resource and as being the means to an end, which
would be a breach of Kantian ethics. So, where the individuals of such taxation groups undertake
the activities to bring down their tax percentage, it would be unethical. It would be unethical only
when the same breaches the morals and principles, and hurts the sentiments of individuals
(McGee, 2006).
Thus, from the discussion carried on in the previous sections, it can be concluded that tax
minimization is an ethical thing to do, where the individuals and MNCs are right in carefully
planning out their finances to give the best to the different stakeholders. It is ethical particularly
from the perspectives of using the best strategies to maximize the benefits. The problems, as
highlighted, are raised when tax evasion or tax avoidance is undertaken. This is when the
stakeholders have to bear the consequences and the Panama Paper leaks happening. The Panama
Papers highlighted the involvement of a number of prominent personalities in tax avoidance. The
main problem in this matter is that the tax evasion follows both the letter and spirit of law, whilst
the tax avoidance is focused only on letter of law and the spirit of law is blatantly ignored. Thus,
the aim of this discussion has been attained, through proving the points against tax minimization
being wrong.

Business Ethics 8
References
Angelus of Clavisio. (1494) Summa Angelica, as cited in Crowe, M.T., The Moral Obligation of
Paying Just Taxes. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred
Theology.
Back, F. (2013) Avoiding tax may be legal, but can it ever be ethical? [Online] The Guardian.
Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/avoiding-tax-legal-but-ever-
ethical [Accessed 20/02/18]
Berardi, A. (1898) Praxis Confessariorum II, as cited in Crowe, M.T., The Moral Obligation of
Paying Just Taxes. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred
Theology.
Crolly, G. (1877) Disputationes Theologicae de Justitia et Jure III at pp. 1001ff, as cited in
Crowe, M.T., The Moral Obligation of Paying Just Taxes. Washington, D.C: The Catholic
University of America Studies in Sacred Theology.
Crowe, M.T. (1944) The Moral Obligation of Paying Just Taxes. Washington, D.C: The Catholic
University of America Studies in Sacred Theology.
Davis, H. (1938) Moral and Pastoral Theology, pp. 339, as cited in Crowe, M.T., The Moral
Obligation of Paying Just Taxes. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Studies
in Sacred Theology.

Business Ethics 9
Genicot, E.S. (1927) Institutiones Theologiae Moralis I, as cited in Crowe, M.T., The Moral
Obligation of Paying Just Taxes. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Studies
in Sacred Theology.
Harding, L. (2016) What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history’s biggest data leak. The
Guardian, 5.
Jonge, J. (2012) Rethinking Rational Choice Theory: A Companion on Rational and Moral
Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lehmkuhl, A. (1902) Theologia Moralis I, as cited in Crowe, M.T., The Moral Obligation of
Paying Just Taxes. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred
Theology.
Lord, N. (2018) Tax avoidance might be legal, but it’s time we seriously questioned its
ethics. Tax Breaks Newsletter, 2018(385), 1-2.
McDonald, G. (2014) Business ethics: a contemporary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McGee, R. W. (2006) Three views on the ethics of tax evasion. Journal of Business
Ethics, 67(1), pp. 15-35.
McGee, R. W. (2011) The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice. New York:
Springer Science & Business Media.
Melé, D. (2009) Business ethics in action: Seeking human excellence in organizations.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Business Ethics 10
Obermayer, B., and Obermaier, F. (2016) The Panama papers: breaking the story of how the
rich and powerful hide their money. London: Oneworld Publications.