Pay Your Taxes

Treasured Readers,
I was confronted with an interesting question last week, regarding the ethical status of paying taxes.  In general, following the law is considered to be a basic ethical requirement. Exceptions for unjust laws notwithstanding, we may obey the law to avoid sanctions, but might also be driven by a sense of fairness. If we understand the spirit of the law, we should abide by it as well.  So, on that basis, should we pay more taxes, if we are able to do so?
Nope.
Going beyond the letter of laws or regulations to honor their spirit is also often cited as an ethical principle. Indeed, the Caux Roundtable Principles for Business, descended from the venerable Minnesota Principles , state, in part, that a “responsible business …adheres to the spirit and intent behind the law, as well as the letter of the law, which requires conduct that goes beyond minimum legal obligations.”  
As an ethical principle, doing more than is minimally required by law makes sense in many instances. For example, we ought to make our workplaces safer than OSHA requires, and we ought to do less harm to the environment than statutes or regulations allow.  In the context of trusting business relationships, we don’t exploit every loophole or opportunity to gain further advantage relative to our partner. We may seek clarity of understanding, rather than clinging to a self-serving interpretation of a given contract term. Each of these examples represents a sound, ethical business practice.
Taxes are different. First, we would be hard-pressed to argue for a coherent “spirit” of the tax code. The code, as applied, results from an admixture of revenue objectives, economic forecasts, and especially policy- and politically-driven incentives. Enforcement is intended to be fair, driven by an accurate application of the code and not by any over-arching spirit or ideology.   Our obligation, therefore, is to follow the rules as we can best understand them. That standard promotes a playing field that is as level as the tax code allows, and assures that we are paying “our fair share.” In this case, fairness entails compliance with the same code that governs everyone else.
Further, if we choose to make additional contributions to the community, I would argue that there are many more efficient means of doing good than paying additional taxes.   The private sector is a tremendously powerful engine for social change, good and ill. If generosity might move a business leader to pay more than the tax code requires, then that spirit would be better expressed through gifts to many other agencies, private or public.
With respect to taxes, we can go ethically wrong in at least two ways. Most obviously, there’s a reason that tax evasion (rather than avoidance) is commonly called,”cheating.” It’s wrong. Even if you disagree with the government, or the way it collects or spends revenue. More interestingly, I argue that it is also an ethical mistake to become obsessed with reducing one’s tax burden, at the expense of more productive pursuits. It is true that a dollar saved through legitimate tax avoidance drops right to the bottom line. It is also true that the amount of energy and resource spent to save that dollar might be better allocated to projects that actually grow our businesses or otherwise enrich lives, ours or others. It is both prudent and ethically sound to keep taxes - along with other expenses – in proper perspective.
Another ethically honorable option, as a citizen and taxpayer, is to influence tax policy and enforcement. To do so, we need look no further than the J.J. Hill Library’s CFO, Anne Rasmussen, CPA, who was selected from among hundreds of qualified applicants to serve on the The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP).  TAP is an independent IRS agency whose 100 members across the country listen to taxpayer concerns and makes recommendations for improving IRS service. You can reach Anne and her colleagues through TAP: call 414-231-2360, or go to www.improveirs.org.  
Contacting TAP is much more effective than grousing to neighbors, friends, or co-workers.  It gives taxpayers a very a real opportunity to make a positive difference for all of us who are served by the IRS.  
TAP doesn’t work to solve individual tax problems. If you are facing economic hardships or are unable to resolve a federal tax problem, you may want to contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS), an independent IRS agency that assists individuals and businesses. In St. Paul call 651-312-8082.
So, pay your taxes, talk to TAP if you have recommendations for improving the IRS, and grouse to friends and neighbors about other stuff.
Thanks for reading.

"I'm telling everybody!"

This weekend I had one of the most engaging – stunning, breathtaking - experiences of my life, so far. I have tried to weave it into a leadership lesson, but those attempts amounted to a pile of hooey, well beneath the intellect of our readership.  So, this blog post mostly amounts to Show and Tell.
On Saturday I joined the Eden Prairie Fire Department in a live burn exercise, which put me in an actual burning building, doing firefighter-like things in the company of real firefighters.   It was overwhelming, and nearly indescribable. I was told it would be very dark, very smoky, and exceedingly - indeed, infernally -hot. It was.   But for the presence of my teammates, I would have felt like a roasting turkey (albeit a turkey in protective clothes, wearing 20-30 minutes worth of safe air, and with thousands of gallons of water at our disposal). I was amazed by how quickly rooms filled with smoke, and how easy it would be to become lost or disoriented.  I looked at a couple of the set fires with an infrared camera and thermometer, and was stunned by the vertical temperature gradients as the fires built, from a few hundred degrees (turkey temperatures) near the floor to more than twice as hot at the ceiling: knock-down, pass-out-whatever-you’re-wearing hot.  With water, came steam.  Lots of steam. I understand why kneeling and crawling are important firefighting skills.   The training sessions were extremely well-run, and intellectually I knew I was safe.  Safe wasn’t always how I felt, however. Mostly, though, it was fascinating to watch how fire behaves in a building, and how firefighting techniques really work.  The hardware was way cool, too. 
If - heaven forbid - you ever find yourself in the burning building,  grab your loved ones and leave, low and fast.  The smoke was astonishing and obviously deadly.
I’ve had the privilege of working with the officer corps of the EPFD for about a year now, essentially working to develop leadership skills within the context of a very well-run, successful, primarily paid, on-call (what used to be called “volunteer”) fire department. I’m not just saying that because they’re a client or because they let me play with their toys, either.    (They were remarkably generous and welcoming in all aspects of the exercise, for which I am profoundly grateful. Beyond that, though, the EPFD is most assuredly a class act.)
In all of the Hill Center’s Public Safety engagements, we talk about the limits of command as a mode of communication.  On a training ground, and even more on a live incident scene, we see the flip side of that discussion, in the necessity for effective command.   In a time-critical, high-risk situation, command is the only way to achieve coordinated, reliable group action. However, it is also worth noting that commands work because of common understanding, underlying respect, and trust. A team can respond to a brief, uttered phrase with a complex set of actions only if that team's work together is characterized by mutual understanding, shared knowledge, and common expectations. The team will respond effectively only if they trust and respect the commander. They will put themselves in those positions only if they trust the command structure and the organization.  And, perhaps most important, the team will go beyond a given command to pursue its intent – and will provide the needed information back to the commander – only if a commensurate level of trust and respect has been developed in advance. 
It was a pleasure to see command and cooperation in action, and to see a healthy blend of responsiveness, initiative, communication, and enthusiasm across the board.   And, did I mention that I got to go in to an actual fire?
The exercise concluded by burning the building to the ground.   I was by no means the only participant to be photographed in front of the burning building, but I might have been sporting the cheesiest grin. My brother Josh captioned the photo as, “The World’s Worst Firefighter.”  

visit jjhill.org
BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.5.003.