To inform or to not to inform; that is the the question. Whether tis nobler yada yada yada

One question comes to mind. Would you do it (inform IRS) provided there WERE no reward? If the answer is yes, go ahead, and disclaim the reward.

ChEAr$, Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

TURN THEM ALL IN. Even if "common practice", tax fraud actively seeks to steal money from the US government and transfer it to private individuals. Of course when I say US government, I mean the citizen's of the US! Even if its only $100, its $100 we don't have to spend on roads or education or thousands other beneficial programs. Your relatives are not stealing from the IRS, they're stealing from you and me and your kids and all the other beneficiaries of tax funded US programs. They are literally taking money out of your wallet. Do you ordinarily allow others to steal from your wallet as they see fit? Of course there's more to this world than money. I am confident that we all strive to MAXIMIZE our UTILITY (h*mo economicus). Utility (read:happiness) is not simply a function of money. Fame, the warm fuzzy feeling of charitable giving, love, and not being pestered to insanity by your wife, all help comprise overall utility. You may decide that some of the intangible things you value will be too greatly compromised by reporting your relatives. If your wife will hate you forever, have you really maximized your happiness by turning them in? I doubt it. The accountant, in particular, has likely done this many times, not just once (all the more reason to turn him in). You should keep in mind that if the accountant is investigated, it will likely turn up more fraud that may harm people you did not intend to report.

Hopefully, your wife will understand just how important it is curtail tax fraud and who really suffers from the abuse. The decision is one that only you can make. If you thoroughly analyze ALL the consequences of the potential outcomes one should stand out from the rest. Your choice is dictated by the option that best benefits you totally (socially, morally, financially, etc). As a utility maximizer myself, I only hope you come to the decision that best benefits me!

But I mean,

To be blunt, I really do not think it is a moral question for you (see new Jag). I am not saying not to report them, I am just saying be honest about your motivation. You want to see them suffer and you want money.

You are absolutely correct, that is about my motivation. If I liked them I wouldn't even think about turning them in. It's not even the money; if I wanted the money I wouldn't hesitate; hypothetically of course. (It's not that I don't want the money, hypothetically; just that the dilemma would be the same even without a reward.)

But it is a moral issue nevertheless. Is doing the right thing morally correct regardless of motivation? On the other hand, would it be a moral imperative if I liked them? It is all too confusing. Just glad it isn't real!

This seemed an appropriate thread in which to contribute the observation that "Ethics is what you do when nobody is looking." Very wise words, which I've never seen attributed, but could certainly be classed among the famous "words to live by." Bill

Dear Abby I once said something similar - the test of someone's character is how he treats someone who can do him no good. Can you do anything for me, Bill? ;-)

Stu

Noting the good will implied by your wink, I decided to post an expression of my appreciation for your comment. I suppose the first and last word on the entire topic is embodied in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So even though it's improbable that I can do anything tangible for you, Stu, we can certainly enjoy the good fellowship implicit in this entire endeavor (i.e., providing tax help for those who ask). Bill :-)

Find a different attorney.

-- ============================================================Ian Pilcher snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com ============================================================

Find a different attorney.

-- ============================================================Ian Pilcher snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com ============================================================

Okay, I certainly wouldn't have others inform on me, so does that mean I shouldn't inform on others? I don't see this as a silly question; they should not have committed tax fraud, but having done so, is it right to hurt them for it? It is not even a matter of turning the other check, but more like rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. (new testament is not my strength, but I think these are more or less right.)

Which brings to mind Abraham Lincoln, that man in the White HOuse during the Late Unpleasantness, aka the War of Northern Aggression: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" Can you imagine next time that that tax attorney and the accountant meet on a social occasion? ChEAr$, Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

Yes, doing the right thing is always morally correct, regardless of the motivation. The issue of motivation comes into play not in determining whether the action is morally correct, but whether the actor deserves credit for having acted morally. Assuming that helping the elderly and those in need is both morally correct and the right thing to do, if your dog picks up your elderly neighbor's newspaper every morning from the end of the driveway and brings it to the back door, your dog has done the right thing and his actions are morally correct; however, if the only reason your dog does this is because he knows that he'll get a treat from your neighbor when he shows up with the paper, then your dog is not a moral agent and does not deserve credit for acting morally, even though he has done the right thing, and has therefore acted in a morally correct manner.