Are the Big 4 accountancy firms really the Big 1? Tax Justice Network Podcast

In the August 2016 Tax Justice Network podcast: The Big Four accountancy firms: Are they in fact more like the Big One? And should they be broken up? Also:

- the Duke of Westminster’s 9 billion tax free inheritance and how his family history forms the legal basis for the justification of tax avoidance around the world;

- why are the world’s biggest banks now officially endorsing transparency measures?

- and…so much for Panama cleaning up its act post-Panama Papers scandal: we discuss the demise of Panama’s not-so-transparent Transparency Commission.

“The Big Four…just seem to be getting away with being the guardians of commerce when they are basically a bunch of tax cheating facilitators…they have infiltrated governments at every level all around the world”

Michael West

 “What they’re doing is really taking over the operation of companies by stealth…4 organisations dominating 98% of global commerce as auditors is well past its used-by date, I don’t think any industry has come even close to this.”

George Rozvany

Featuring: John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network, tax ethicist George Rozvany (with 32 years of experience at senior levels of Big 4 Accounting Firms and major corporations) and award winning economics and finance journalist Michael West.

Produced and presented by @Naomi_Fowler for the Tax Justice Network.

Never miss an episode. Hook up to our RSS feed here. Or subscribe via email by contacting the Taxcast producer Naomi Fowler on naomi [at] taxjustice.net The Taxcast is available on iTunes.

Join us on facebook

Join us on youtube

Home websites: www.tackletaxhavens.com/taxcast www.taxjustice.net/taxcast

 

Tagged with: , , , , ,
One comment on “Are the Big 4 accountancy firms really the Big 1? Tax Justice Network Podcast
  1. John Puma says:

    Add the three bond ratings agencies, Moody’s, S&P and Fitch which control~95% of the ratings business, and you’ll most likely have the sum total of the yet to be publicly named derivative “third party” beneficiaries to whom massive US government payouts were delivered.