.png)
.png)
JOHN WATSON suggests simpler tax legislation might dispense with the need for a general anti-avoidance rule
KEY POINTS
- The Aaronson report concentrates on abuse rather than avoidance.
- Are the suggested tests of avoidance too complicated?
- Is the real problem that tax legislation is not fit for purpose?
- Could the OTS make real progress to simplify tax legislation?
- The Newfields case and HMRC’s discretion.
As a general rule the more elegant the prose in which a document is expressed the more carefully one should think about the author’s conclusions.
That rule alone indicates that one should read Graham Aaronson’s report on the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) study with special care.
The language is immaculate and the logic is seductive. The only safe route is to get into a hot bath after reading it to think through Aaronson’s conclusions.
So as the water turns cold and...
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.
