Much has been written about Sir Mike Rake's elevation to BT, and much will no doubt still be written.

I think some of it is a bit unfair.

Dennis Howlett asks on his blog why Sir Mike hasn't fallen on his sword over the US tax avoidance schemes.

I think there's a couple of reasons for that. He was involved in dealing with the US authorities over the eventual fine (when the row escalated) but certainly not with marketing or devising the tax schemes, nor I think with the initial responses to DoJ enquiries about them. Others may disagree, but the very fact of having been global chairman at the time does not mean in my opinion that he should have been the fall-guy.

Separately, there's a discussion on Richard Murphy's site as to why he has gone now. There seems to be some bemusement.

Well, he was senior partner in the UK, but stepped down last year. He stayed on as global chairman then because, as I understand it, there was noone at the time ready to take on the role. This was largely due to the early death of US boss Eugene O'Kelly in 2005 at the age of 53. The US was due to take on the role in the traditional alternation between the US firm and someone else from around the world, but there was noone with the requisite experience to take it up then.

He stayed on to oversee a difficult period in the firm's history, and is taking a pay cut to move to BT (he got £825,000 as KPMG International chairman, and will get £600,000 now).

He told us in March of last year that his ideal life after KPMG would be as follows: 'Family life might be one option. I would like to get some balance [back]. something with an international background would be interesting, not multiple different directorships.'

Working at BT with its global ambitions, for three days a week, seems to fit that bill.

As for his view on tax issues generally, for which he is getting a bit of stick in general KPMG terms, I wouldn't describe him as one of the most forward thinking people in the industry, certainly. In my dealings with him he tended to ascribe the current avoidance crackdown as just the flavour of the month, as something that related to a fiscal squeeze on the part of governments. I think that's a bit dismissive.

But at the same time, I think the Big Four have to be given a bit of credit for stepping back from the most aggressive forms of avoidance, as they have done over the last few years. That was in part motivated by the disclosure regime, but on things like charity tax schemes, they had a choice, and they chose not to indulge. Sir Mike gets some of that credit.

Critics of KPMG may well get their way in one respect over the job moves and their relation to tax schemes, however. The US might expect to get the global chairmanship role once Sir Mike steps down, but I have a sneaking feeling the reputational risks of the tax scheme saga may still work against them.

We report tomorrow that Rolf Nonnenmacher from the German firm is the major rival to current US chief exec Tim Flynn. Appointing Nonnenmacher would send out a positive message about the global integration path KPMG is taking.

Don't bet against it.