Assignment Instructions for Writer (Please write Level 7 Master’s Essay)

Module Title and Assessment Overview – Corporate Criminality and Tax Evasion

1. Write an academic essay for:

Corporate Criminality and Tax Evasion, based on the following question:

“How effective has action by the UK government been in reducing the tax gap? Compare the action in the UK with that of one other country (Singapore).”

2. Writing Standard

Write this essay at a Level 7 (Master’s) academic standard.
It must be analytical, evaluative, and critical — not descriptive

Avoid simply describing what each country did — focus on how well it worked and why

• Interpret and evaluate the effectiveness of each country’s tax gap strategies, not just list them.
• Compare policy intent, enforcement outcomes, and the real-world impact of measures.
• Argue which jurisdiction is more effective, using evidence and reasoning.
• Question whether policies achieve their intended goals.
• Engage critically with academic opinions, government data, and international perspectives.

3. Please ensure the essay demonstrates critical engagement, legal precision, and analytical comparison, meeting postgraduate academic standards. Footnotes must be consistent and formatted per OSCOLA throughout.
4. Word Count: 3,000 words (±10%)

1. Referencing: OSCOLA (with accurate footnotes and a full bibliography)
2. Level: Postgraduate (Level 7 – Critical Analysis)
3. Do not describe what each government did.
   Instead, analyse how and why those actions succeeded or failed — using legal reasoning, data, and theory

Expected Structure

1. Introduction (≈300 words)

• Define the tax gap concept using authoritative sources (e.g., OECD, HMRC).
• State the purpose and scope of the essay.
• Present a clear thesis statement, e.g.:

“This essay critically evaluates the effectiveness of the UK Government’s strategies to reduce the tax gap, contrasting them with Singapore’s streamlined tax compliance system, to determine which model achieves greater fiscal integrity and deterrence.”

2. The UK’s Approach to Reducing the Tax Gap (≈1,000 words)

• Evaluate the effectiveness of:

• Legislative tools (Criminal Finances Act 2017, Finance Act 2020).
• Administrative reforms (Making Tax Digital, compliance initiatives).

• Discuss whether these measures have meaningfully reduced the tax gap.
• Consider counterarguments, enforcement weaknesses, or unintended consequences.
• Use evidence (HMRC data, reports) critically, not descriptively.

Example footnote:
HMRC, Measuring Tax Gaps 2023 Edition (HMRC, 2023) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps-2023-edition accessed 3 November 2025.

3. Singapore’s Approach (≈1,000 words)

• Analyse how Singapore’s system prevents tax gaps through simplicity, digitalisation, and deterrence.
• Evaluate the impact of laws such as the Income Tax Act (Cap. 134) and Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act.
• Assess the institutional effectiveness of the IRAS model.
• Compare compliance culture and deterrence strategies with those of the UK.

Example footnote:
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), Annual Report 2023/24 (IRAS, 2024) https://www.iras.gov.sg accessed 3 November 2025.

4. Comparative Analysis (≈500 words)

• Critically compare:

• UK’s deterrence-based enforcement vs Singapore’s compliance-based culture.
• The complexity of UK law vs Singapore’s administrative simplicity.
• Effectiveness in reducing non-compliance and building taxpayer trust.

• Discuss why one model performs better — use reasoning, not only facts.

Support arguments with comparative legal theory and academic commentary.

5. Conclusion (≈200 words)

• Present a reasoned judgment on which system is more effective overall.
• Reflect briefly on policy implications for global tax governance.
• Avoid summary — end with evaluation (what works, what doesn’t, and why).

Referencing

Use OSCOLA footnotes throughout and provide a bibliography at the end.
Include both primary sources (statutes, policy papers) and secondary sources (journal articles, OECD reports, case law).

Key Reminder

Do not describe what each government did.
Instead, analyse how and why those actions succeeded or failed — using legal reasoning, data, and theory.