35
pay for the best advisers.’ If it were true that women pay tax because
they are less equipped to avoid or mitigate it, however, it would follow that the fiscal gender gap would be smaller in countries with greater levels of legal, financial and social equality. ‘Where social, political and cultural gender equality is greater, we expected behavioral differences between men and women to be smaller,’ the academics wrote. ‘In contrast, our evidence reveals that women are significantly more compliant than men in all countries.’ ‘In that sense,’ says Volintiru, ‘I think there is a solid argument for behavioural differences between men and women.’ What are these behavioural differences,
Research suggests men and women tend to come at the issue of paying tax from a different direction
The fairer sex
All the evidence suggests women are less likely than men to avoid tax – but why? By Anna Solomon
IN 2017, CLARA VOLINTIRU of the Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies and John D’Attoma of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies published a paper that yielded a blunt conclusion: men are more likely than women to avoid tax. Volintiru and D’Attoma conducted several
experiments on men and women in the US, the UK, Sweden and Italy, discovering ‘a consistent, statistically significant difference in fiscal behaviour’, with men more likely to under-report their income. In a separate study, Benno Torgler of Queensland University of Technology and Neven T Valev of Georgia State University drew the same conclusion. They used data
on eight western European countries from the World Values Survey and the European Values Survey to reveal ‘significantly greater aversion to corruption and tax evasion among women’.
So, women do indeed appear to be the ‘fairer sex’. What isn’t clear is why. One theory is that women are less likely to have accrued the money, power, influence or resources that make it both possible and especially attractive to minimise one’s tax burden. Camilla Wallace, head of private clients at law firm Wedlake Bell, concurs with this sentiment: ‘[Women] might not be aware of the tax landscape, so end up paying more. Also, if they’re earning less, they can’t
exactly? They could be cognitive, argues Torgler, who conducted neuroscientific experiments in the wake of his study to try to explain the results, including allowing men and women to cheat in order to measure their stress levels. ‘It seems that, when there are high stakes, females are more cooperative,’ he says. Or perhaps it is evolutionary. When humans were hunter-gatherers, women’s role was to gather – a low-risk, low-reward activity compared to the high-risk, high-reward of hunting. Also, humans are altricial, meaning they are born in an undeveloped state requiring intensive parental (usually maternal) care for a long time. This could be the basis of a feminine instinct for nurture. Wallace believes the idea of women being
‘caring’ could explain the fact that tax advice is a comparatively ‘female’ profession. (The proportion of women among the tax advisers featured in the Spear’s 500 is much higher than among wealth managers, for example.) The job requires a lot of emotional intelligence, which is more commonly found in women, says Wallace: ‘Because we’re dealing with people’s personal and family circumstances, it’s extremely sensitive. So you’re looking for individuals who combine intellect with empathy.’ Even within the tax industry, women are more likely to become private client advisers while men dominate corporate tax – where there are fewer soft skills involved and more money to be held on to. ‘There’s this stigma about advising Amazon and Google on how to mitigate their UK tax,’ says Wallace. ‘I don’t think that necessarily feeds into your stereotypical female adviser.’ S
GEORGIE STEWART
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
