Interesting that LI is covering this. Much more similar stories needed. But I disagree with his comparison of law firms and the so called "big 4". Comparing apples with oranges. He cannot even practice in courts. Law firms are more law inclined (unlike the " big 4"). Seems he is already vary of the breakthrough law firms are making in the business of the "big 4".

Have known Amit Bhagat for a number of years, very competent professional. All the very best!!

What is JB Dadachanji? Who runs it? I've never heard of it.

Hi Harjeet,

I have personally worked with Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan in VAT and Customs and Excise litigations but my point is, litigation is just a sub-part of tax practice. An evolved tax practice will involve opinions on complex tax matters, tax restructuring, opinions on varying tax routes, opinions on customs and excise and mode of entry of imported goods, opinions on SEZ matters and transacting with SEZs and EOU units, indirect tax compliance and many other service offerings. The main money lies in the advisory part. I am not disputing that Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan is one of the giants in indirect tax litigation but compared to the engagement fees earned by Big 4 in advisory through out their tax practices, the engagement fees of LKS is not that great.

I think there is no comparison between Big 4 and law firms simply because both operate at different levels. While Big 4s are more into the business consulting area of tax, law firms will actually give you the legal advice on tax matters. Further, Big 4s cannot practice in courts. As a matter of fact, Big 4's hardly ever conclude on any complex tax issues. If you ever read their 'memo', you are more likely to be confused rather than convinced. Even Big 4s run to Senior Counsels like S. Ganesh and N. Venkat whenever they are faced with complex issues.

Having said that, Big 4s are excellent when it comes to structuring business models or optimizing tax costs. This is one area where they are way ahead of law firms. Sadly though, thats the only area where Big 4s score over law firms.

build PwC’s practice at the pan-India level, hire the best talent, increase visibility in the market and offer the highest quality services

Hmm.. considering his considerable experience in expanding practices, he looks to have a good vision.. hopefully this expansion will work out otherwise there could be troubled times ahead.. PwC is not as penetrative as his old employer was nor as compassionate..

I am alumnus of NLS and started my career with a big 4 and subsequently moved on to the taxation practice of a tier 1 law firm. I feel I shall be able to throw a bit of light on the issue in hand.

In my opinion,the tax practice of a big four is much more detailed, comprehensive and holistic. The primary reason for this is the nature of resource in possession. A big four firm has the advantage of working in collaboration with its transactional advisory and other super specialized finance teams.Naturally, the service rendered to the client is solution driven and industry oriented, this is particularly true of the diligence and health check reports prepared by the big four firms which are the collaborative efforts of different departments (transfer pricing, direct tax, indirect tax, financial advisory, etc). Being a tax lawyer I can assure you that for tax advisory, compliance and even litigation, atleast a rudimentary knowledge of reading and interpreting financial statements is a must, a skill often lacking in lawyers.

A law firm's tax practice is more litigation oriented with sparse advisory engagements and hardy any compliance. Indirect tax compliance involves scrutinizing invoices, previous returns, cenvat registers, etc, that are greek to most lawyers without a big four (and to an extent lks) experience. But, ironically, this litigation heavy practice model, acts as a blessing in disguise for law firms. Big ticket clients with a comprehensive in house taxation teams engage law firms. Their in house teams conduct compliance while external consultancy is asked for primarily litigating matters. These clients are capable of paying heavily and they do.

Whereas, a majority of the big four's clients are small to mid level organisations with negligible to absent in house teams. Hence, they engage the firms for recurring compliance and advisory assignments. Very rarely, do these clients' matters end up even at tribunals let alone the higher courts. A big four employee primarily spends his time at the Assessment level offices rather than judicial or quasi judicial forums.

So, the choice between a big four and a law firm depends on the size and specific needs of the clients. The bigger ones looking primarily at litigation services opt for the legal firms while the mid level firms looking at one stop comprehensive tax solutions prefer the big fours.

Also, wanted to add, that Deloitte has started poaching aggressively in indirect tax. Bhagat is moving to PwC only because almost the entire indirect tax practice of PwC has been poached by Deloitte in the last month or so, culminating with the move of the stalwart of indirect taxation, Mr. Muralidharan with his complete team. This follows the poaching of Saloni Roy from ey last year.

No disrepect to Bhagat, but he is harly a match for either Muralidharan or Saloni.

@jackal, I completely second you. I am an alumnus of SLS, Pune and I work in the advisory practice of EY and often we coordinate with our tax practice team to provide the clients with tax compliance checklists for various geographies and research materials on transfer pricing, DTAA and related party transactions. The other way round is when we analyse risks we get the tax teams to help us in analysing contractual and transactional risks originating from import of software or hardware and analysing the BOEs, invoices and declarations. But this all depends on the clients and their choices like Jackal said. Saloni Roy is an amazing professional and leader when it comes to tax.