This week's opinion: 16 October 2019

Recently I acquired a 1966 book on estate duty saving – you never know when it might come in useful! I was struck by the opening sentence: ‘The aim of this book is to enable the taxpayer to minimise his commitments to the Revenue.’ The sexist language dates it, but what struck me is the absolute certainty of the author’s opinion. If there were any doubt, the start of his second paragraph clinched it: ‘It is considered that the lowering of revenue burdens provided this is brought about by legal means needs no justification.’

Life must have been different for advisers then – R v CIR (ex parte Rossminster) [1980] STC 42 was still a decade away and the transactions in Furniss v Dawson [1984] STC 153 had not yet taken place. Now we live in a changed world with the requirements of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation to consider and the GAAR panel, after a slow start, getting into its stride. (I will be writing about its latest decision in next week’s magazine.) 

I am not suggesting these changes are wrong, but I wonder what the preface of a book on tax planning might say in 50 years’ time. Will things be even tighter then or might the pendulum have swung the other way so that transactions are judged only on a literal interpretation of the law. It is difficult to see that this would happen but, equally, my author from 1966 could never have foreseen the environment in which we now work.

In 50 years’ time one of our younger readers could be writing an article for Taxation looking back over tax history just as I am doing here. Wouldn’t it be fascinating to be able come back and see what they had written?