On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Vinayak Hegde <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Public figure saves money by twisting the law. Almost every individual I > know does this. eg. declaring receipts for medical bills after giving a cut > to the chemist from where the bills are procured. Why do we hold public > figures to higher standards than our colleagues or neighbours for aspects of > their lives that have nothing to do with them being famous ? > Also, what's the morality behind paying every rupee of tax that may possibly be levied? There is a clear difference between tax avoidance and evasion. He's (his advisors, actually) devised a "clever" ruse to obtain a legitimate tax benefit. As in a legal one. He makes a claim to that benefit, and the way it works is that the adjudication mechanism under the IT Act decides. Kinda like waiting for the umpire to raise the finger before trudging off the field. No one's a walker and the system as it is set up does not require anyone to be. If he succeeds then he paves the way for a lot of people in the future. Income from adverts is that obtained through his skills as an actor. And income from cricket is income obtained from his daily job. The key issue is whether a person can be a dual professional. Both an actor and a cricketer depending on the activity from which the income in questions arises. I think it's outlandish, but it's inventive enough to be tested under the provisions of the TAx Act. This is not a case of twisting the system or the law. This is the sort of argumentation that has been the sine qua non of the common law system. It leads to the development of the law in a more rapid manner and also compels greater legislative precision and clarity in the event that the concerned Legislature disagrees with the court's ruling. Unless there's an allegation that he influenced or corrupted a member of the judiciary, I don't think this is a case where a "Public figure saves money by twisting the law".
