A more recent version of these General Anti Avoidance Rule notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tax Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
What is GAARContext
o Public reaction to tax avoidance in times of austerityGAAR is in Finance Bill 2013 o Policy issueBased on the premise that all taxpayers should pay their fair contribution. This same premise underlies the GAAR.
*Parliament has decisively rejected this approach, and has imposed an overriding statutory limit on the extent to which taxpayers can go in trying to reduce their tax bill.
*Rejects the approach taken by the Courts in a number of old cases to the effect that taxpayers are free to use their ingenuity to reduce their tax bills by any lawful means, however contrived those means might be and however far the tax consequences might diverge from the real economic position Duke of Westminster v IRC (1936)
That limit is reached when the arrangements put in place by the taxpayer to achieve that purpose go beyond anything which could reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action
How does it work?
o A residual catch all when TAARs and other antiavoidance rules fail o Applies to"Tax arrangements" that are "abusive"Double reasonableness test "cannot reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action"Indicators of abusiveness
*EFFECT o a tax adjustment which is just and reasonable in all the circumstances. The appropriate tax adjustment is not necessarily the one that raises the most tax.-
When taxpayer may have carried out any one of several alternative nonabusive transactions to achieve the best result - select the one that the taxpayer would most likely have carried out
International rules o International treaties on double taxation and the attribution of profits o But there is work underway in the OECD to counteract the erosion of the tax base and profit shiftin
Assessment of GAARBenefits
o Freedman (2012) Legitimise the discretion, after half a century of soul searching from the courts between Duke of
Westminster and BMBF
? Ramsay Principle was diluted by MacNiven v Westmoreland (2001) which reduced it to a principle of judicial construction and in BMBF v Mawson (2005) the idea that the courts might take an antiavoidance approach to legislative construction was rejected.
? We are back to the dictum of Rowlatt J in Cape Brandy Syndicate (!921) "no room for intendment. There is no equity about a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied"
? A legislative GAAR would form the basis of the development of a judicial GAAR As a result we have a string of cases where the revenue lost where a GAAR would have helped
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tax Law Notes.