In case you didn't know, a whistle-blower has revealed that Barclays have been avoiding a metric fuck-ton of tax by moving $16.25bn through a series of highly convoluted, though entirely legal, tax havens. Says The Guardian: "Tax benefits were to be generated by an elaborate circuit of Cayman islands companies, US partnerships and Luxembourg subsidiaries."

They also reported that 'The chancellor, Alastair Darling, told parliament: "I have asked HM Revenue & Customs to publish... a draft code of practice on taxation for the banking sector – so that banks will comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the law."'

Which on the surface of it, sounds quite reasonable. Following the spirit of the law is a fine aim. But there is a problem with the chancellor's comments which he perhaps doesn't understand.

This requires clarification. The general opinion of most right-minded people is that legal tax avoidance on this scale (let's not allow them to win the war of language -- the phrase "tax efficiency" is far too forgiving) is abhorrent, especially when some of those very same companies, like RBS, turn to the tax payer for a bailout. The idea that the poor pay full tax while the super-rich can avoid paying millions of pounds is, in the minds of many, unacceptable. The spirit of the people of Britain is anti-tax havens, that much is clear.

But as much as we'd like to think that the "spirit of the law" says that using tax havens is wrong, what the spirit of the law actually seems to say is this: "Dear boy, if you can find a way around all that ghastly tax business, then by all means, be my guest!"

The briefest glance at the financial industry proves that this is the case. For Christ's sake, there are financial advisers and organisations in this country whose sole purpose is to advise companies how best to legally avoid paying tax! If such avoidance of tax were truly going against the spirit of the law, something would be done about their existence.

Because you just can't imagine such organisations being allowed to help people break any other law. For example, can you imagine hearing about someone whose job it is to advise a company about legal ways of refusing to employ women, and calling it "gender efficiency"? Or can you fathom of a legal firm whose job is to advise potential murderers on the wisest way to legally commit their crime, labelling such a practice "life expectancy efficiency"? Or can you, in the darkest parts of your mind, conceive of an organisation being allowed to specialise in advice to companies on legal loopholes which might allow someone to hold another human being as a slave, under the title of "human rights efficiency"? After all, in all these cases, the discrimination, the murder and the slavery would be entirely legal. That's the whole point. They wouldn't be following the spirit of the law, but the letter of the law would be fully abided by. Yet you can't for a second imagine that such people would remain in employment for very long.

The only way financial advisers can be allowed to specialise in helping companies, non-doms and assorted billionaires from avoiding tax is if the "spirit of the law" not only knows about their work, but gives them its tacit blessing, with a nod and a wink and a smug, sly smile, and trebles all round for the old boys in the members' bar.

If Alistair Darling -- who, in case he's forgotten, is the fucking chancellor -- wants businesses to stop using tax havens, then I expect there's a quite considerable amount that he could actually do about it. Instead of vague moral arguments about respecting the spirit of the law, he could work on making the letter of the law impossible to misinterpret. Close off the loopholes. Make it absolutely clear that if you live in this country or do business in this country, then you pay tax in this country. If it truly becomes illegal to avoid paying tax, then also make it a crime to advise companies on ways of avoiding tax; let's call them co-conspirators to the crime. And if any companies or businessmen threaten to leave the country if we don't bend over backwards to let them be more "tax efficient", if they threaten to take their products and their experience and their expertise elsewhere, then I will gladly pay for their taxi to the airport. I'm sure we'll get by without them.

Barclays branch photo taken from Ambrosiana Pictures' Flickr stream.