Hi - it depends on what kind of tax and what kind of firm. The tax practices of firms frequently fall into the advisory, transaction tax or litigation buckets. If you work with a team that does more of transaction related tax advisory, then the timelines will be similar to those experienced by deal lawyers. Similarly, if you do tax litigation, then the experience and timelines will be similar to a litigation practice. Tax advisory work can be as high octane but can also be slower paced, depending on the kind of situation you are looking at. I maybe biased, but I think tax work, purely on account of its complexity and the frequency of amendments, offers more opportunity for deep technical thinking than many other areas of law, irrespective of whether you end up in transaction tax, lit or advisory (but particularly if you're in lit or advisory).

The other piece to look into would be what kind of a tax practice you are joining, and whether the team comprises of a mix of CAs and lawyers or more lawyers. CAs tend to have a different approach to tax law and CA heavy teams can be more hierarchical (although not always).

I'm in a boutique tax firm, have worked with Tier I, along with a short stint representing the Government. My entire experience is in tax litigation and hence I'm not qualified to comment upon the tax advisory/deals aspect of the job except to say that you can make a choice towards either.

In tax practice, there are two broad silos. One is direct tax and the other is indirect. Although it may appear to an outsider that each silo is a composite practice, there are further sub-divisions. For instance, indirect tax practice is further sub-divided into GST, Customs & International Trade. A GST team, usually, would not be competent to handle customs matters and vice-versa. Broadly, those who practice in indirect tax would also not be very comfortable with direct tax and vice versa. By its very nature, tax is an intensively specialized field.

With regard to the difference between advisory and litigation, CAs tend to go towards the former while lawyers tend to gravitate towards the letter. However, you would also find lawyers working in advisory teams.

In the course of your career, you would hear that tax is the most difficult legally dense field to practice. That's true. The drop out rates are astronomical. Its complexity is notorious. The pro is that if you enjoy hard law, this would be the best practice since you would wrestle with complex legal issues on a daily basis. The con is the damn steep learning curve. In the first 10 years, there would be a constant feeling that you know nothing. After that, you would be able to ignore it.

The advantages of choosing tax are as follows:

a) Less crowded: Of the thousands who graduate into law every year, very few enter or could sustain tax beyond 5 years. It is less crowded and the tax bar is a close knit community.

b) No drudgery: Your work life would not revolve around templates. Each show-cause notice and every assessment year would bring something new to the table. You would be in the thick of law and as happy as a pig in muck.

c) Cross-application: Once you get comfortable with tax, you would find other laws easy. Personally, post 7 years of tax practice, I found FEMA to be a cake walk.

d) Independence: This is the easiest practice to set up your own shop and go independent. This is also a practice where a small team of 4-5 could manage the entire work. When you decide to go independent from the firm, you and a junior could do massive work in the initial few years. A body count is not required to succeed.

e) Posts: There are appointments for Standing Counsel, Tribunal Members, etc., which are open. Due to the less population in tax practice, the odds are good if you try for something.

f) No law school differentiation: The law school pedigree or its prestige do not matter. When your opponents are IRS officers and you are briefed by CAs(arguably one of the toughest professional qualifications) or Big 4, the measly national law school tag would be of no value. They would see through the bull shit straight away.

g) No crazy hours: Work life balance is possible except before final hearings.

The disadvantages are:

a) You may not like it or may be uncomfortable with the steep learning curve.

b) Elements of mathematics.

c) The pay is average at the beginning but fantastic down the line (15+ PQE)

d) Competition from Big 4/CAs.

Thank you for your reply. It was very detailed and helpful. Could you please elaborate more on the "Competition from CAs" disadvantage, especially if a lawyer were to go for advisory work rather than litigation? Would I as a lawyer be at any sort of disadvantage against CAs?

1. There are many CAs that are way better litigator than lawyers. Especially levels below HC
2. Clients are mostly with CAs so they have early mover advantage
3. CAs have better exposure to department & taxation as they do a lot of compliance work too
...
Sitting in Income Tax Tribunal was most rewarding thing for me, as they are way ahead than even many HC

My parents are CA's and they are part of a large no of CA's who struggle to find a good attorney to represent their clients in the HC's. I'm just a first year law student, my parents advice me to practice under a well known tac attorney and gain experience. After that they and their circle will divert their clients to me. Is this plan viable

Can you please elaborate on the elements of mathematics in tax litigation. Also, I have been offered a PPO in a tax litigation firm however, till date I have only interned in civil and commercial litigation. How difficult would it be for me to divert into tax practice at the start of my career as a fresher with no prior internship experience in tax litigation?

Depends on whether you DT and IDT. In DT Accounting concepts are heavier than IDT, do a CA foundation/inter accounts playlist on YouTube, learn accounting concepts, journal entries, ledgers etc so that you can understand the flow of assessments. If you are in IDT and even in general I would advise doing a course on Excel and practice filing returns. Visit any CA/Tax practitoner near you and say "Sir I'm gonna join a law chamber I just wanna practice one or two returns. Try filing GSTR-1,3B to understand the various tabs they have in the return or just ask the CA for dummy data on which you can practice. Come July or so visit the CA office and ask to sit with someone who is filing a Income tax return. I know this sounds too much but trust me worth it in the long run. You will be solid on grassroot basics.

I am a tax lawyer who has been on the advisory/structuring side of tax practice. Have done the full grunt, including working in Big4 firms as well as law firms. For a lawyer, the most important aspect to accept is that taxation, especially direct tax, involves a lot of accounting elements. So, being hands on with accounting is especially important. Structuring transactions gives a real adrenaline rush and to identify tax efficient structures involves not only knowledge of tax, but also corporate laws, FEMA etc. Also, it is likely that transaction documents would oftentimes hinge on tax aspects, which means drafting of tax clauses, becomes important. Plus, from personal experience, I've felt that generally, corporate lawyers sometimes may not appreciate various commercial aspects, which tax advisors are more adept at handling. So, all in all, as a tax lawyer in structuring/advisory, you are likely to be a well rounded transaction lawyer.
The downside of course is the competition from CAs. Like it or not, they get practical exposure to tax during articleship days and also, the tax component of CA exams are rigorous, making them more adept at handling the subject. A typical tax lawyer only learns the tax law on the job whereas even the fresh CA is way ahead in the learning curve. So, a fresher tax lawyer is likely to have an extremely, extremely steep learning curve, what with trying to understand tax concepts, accounting concepts, other laws etc. Plus, you HAVE to be good with numbers or at least take every effort to reach at least an average comfort level with numbers. Excel skills are a given, and you cannot shy away saying you do not know how to use it. The biggest challenge is, most law firms (unless an exclusive tax law firm) see tax as only as an add on support service, due to which you never get the importance or respect you actually deserve. Career moves are therefore limited, because in order for a CA firm (especially a Big4) to hire a tax lawyer, you need to be exceptionally gifted or plain lucky. Another issue I have noted is that in the Indian context at least, clients prefer talking to a CA on tax aspects rather than to lawyers, in non-litigious matters. Since typically your clients are likely to be the CFO/finance controller/tax heads etc., they don't take tax lawyers seriously on non-litigation matters. Winning their trust takes time, though if you are good, you will get there. Indeed, the tax lawyer space is less crowded - but that by no means ensures an easy career! It's a difficult practice area to say the least. Growth is also slow and the likelihood of making partner in 6-7 years is not especially easy. Getting revenues is not easy and with super competition from half a million CAs, not to mention Big4s with their streamlined knowledge management systems and business development, life as a tax lawyer ain't a piece of cake!

So, take up tax law only if you are sure you are willing to put in at least four-five times the effort that an average corporate lawyer would put in. Good luck!

Hello All,
I am a tax professional, who graduated from NLU some good time back. Worked with one of the best tax law firms in the country and then also worked with private tax lawyer chamber.

I am in agreement with the previous comments made on the 'pros' side. However, I would like to highlight the 'cons' which are presently being faced by tax lawyers. CAs dominate the DT practices while IDT practices are dominated by retired departmental employees.

Another problem is since arrival of GST followed by SVSDLRS (amnesty 1 time settlement scheme) a lot of old Excise, Service tax litigation has finished. CESTAT have become empty. On the GST front, GST Tribunal has still not been created even after 4 years of GST regime.

As such a lawyer solely relying on tax litigation will not be able to survive. Practice has virtually dried up.

Solely relying on a tax practice may not augur well in the long run.

Be prepared to earn significantly less and face this eventually.

Third, moving in house is almost ruled out. Corporates prefer chartered accountants, who can multi task.

The competition from CAs is no overstatement.

Every big firm having a tax practice has its tax head from an accounting firm with an accounting background. Hence, starting off with big 4 may give you an advantage. But, the pay is extremely disheartening, when you indulge in comparison.

All the best.

I am a tax lawyer who feels stuck in practice after being here for 3 years.....the pay as compared to my corporate friends is disheartening and it requires significant hard work to keep up with the constant updates.....furthermore, I am not as good with numbers as the CAs I face my competition with.

I feel lost as to what to do......whether to stick it out and believe that I will make it to a level where I am earning good, and am comfortable and confident in what I do.....or to quit law entirely and do an MBA, as switching to another area of law means starting everything from scratch, which I cannot do since I have a family to support